Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Topic

Obscenity classification

Legal area

Court

31 May 2007

THREE WEEKLY LTD v. COMMISSIONER FOR TELEVISION AND ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING AUTHORITY

Citation

THREE WEEKLY LTD v. COMMISSIONER FOR TELEVISION AND ENTERTAINMENT LICENSING AUTHORITY
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV316/2006

The Court held the OAT classification function is administrative not criminal, post-publication classifications are lawful and can serve public interest, Bill of Rights Article 11 does not apply to classification proceedings, Article 10/Basic Law challenges failed on facts, and the Tribunal acted within its statutory powers in classifying the article as Class III; a minor error in treating commercial exploitation as a central factor did not vitiate the decision and appeals were dismissed.
31 May 2007

THREE WEEKLY LTD v. OBSCENE ARTICLES TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER

Citation

THREE WEEKLY LTD v. OBSCENE ARTICLES TRIBUNAL AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV315/2006

The Court held the OAT's classification function is administrative not criminal; the OAT lawfully conducted a post-publication classification, could consider contextual factors (including invasion of privacy and guidance from film censorship criteria) and was not required to apply criminal burdens or exclude hearsay; the OAT did not exceed jurisdiction by including the contents page and its critical findings were reasonable; any minor error (re commercial exploitation) was not outcome-determinative; consequently the appeals were dismissed and costs ordered.