Press Release
  
 

Email this articleGovernment Homepage

Government respects CFA judgment

********************************

The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (HKSAR) Government respects the Court of Final Appeal (CFA) judgment on the Ng Siu Tung, Sin Hoi Chu and Li Shuk Fan cases and will take necessary measures to implement it in accordance with the law, the Secretary for Security, Mrs Regina Ip, said today (January 10).

"The CFA judgment lays down a firm legal basis and clear yardsticks for us to deal with the many ROA cases which arose in the past two years. I believe that the litigants, the HKSAR Government as well as the general public would all like to see a conclusion to the whole debate after the CFA has heard and delivered a judgment on this important case," she said.

Mrs Ip reiterated that the Government respected the rule of law and would take suitable steps to fully implement the CFA judgment.

"I am happy to see that claimants have generally reacted calmly and rationally to the judgment so far. For those who do not benefit from the court judgment, I urge them to voluntarily return to the Mainland," she said.

She was pleased to know that the Public Security Ministry (PSM) in the Mainland had made an announcement today on the implementation of a grace period for returnees. It gave an assurance that for those persons who were parties relating to ROA litigation and their children under 18, if they were willing to voluntarily return to the Mainland within the grace period from January 11 to March 31, 2002, the PSM would not impose sanctions against them for having illegally entered or overstayed in HK. They could still go to HK in future to visit their relatives. The grace period is a special measure implemented by the Mainland authorities. Individual Mainland claimants will no doubt want to take advantage of this measure based on their own circumstances.

She urged all claimants to stay calm and consider the judgment carefully. She also pledged that the Government would not commence removal actions against those with no right to stay in Hong Kong before the end of the grace period announced by the Mainland authorities, i.e. March 31, 2002.

"The HKSAR Government would not like to see any person resorting to drastic actions. In this regard, I hope that those organisations and individuals who have been helping the claimants could assist us in comforting them. The Security Bureau, Immigration Department and Social Welfare Department (SWD) have all along been keeping in contact with ROA claimants. Hotlines have been set up by the SWD as well as a relevant voluntary agency to help those in need of counselling.

Turning to the main rulings of the CFA judgment, Mrs Ip noted that in adjudicating the right of abode appeal cases, the CFA had covered four major issues. She however made it clear that her interpretation was no substitute for the actual CFA judgment or the summary prepared by the court.

Firstly, on the "judgments previously rendered" issue, the CFA ruled against the applicants.

Secondly, on the "legitimate expectation" issue, the CFA allowed the appeal in respect of the applicant who was a recipient of the Legal Aid proforma reply sent between December 7, 1998 and January 29, 1999 and in respect of the applicant who received a letter from the Secretary to Security. The CFA found each document to be amounting to a specific representation to the applicant concerned that he would be treated as if he was a party to the Ng Ka Ling and Chan Kam Nga cases. The appeals of the two applicants having been allowed, the removal orders against them were quashed and the Director of Immigration was to reconsider their cases.

Thirdly, on the issue relating specifically to "Period 1" (i.e. before July 1, 1997) and 'Period 2" (between July 1 to July 10, 1997) arrivals, the CFA only allowed the appeal in respect of the applicant who was here in Period 1 and who was born after one of his parents had become a Hong Kong permanent resident. There should be fewer than 100 similar cases in this group.

Lastly, on the "Concession" issue, the CFA held that there was no misinterpretation or misapplication of the policy decision by the Director of Immigration, although the CFA found that in certain cases the Director had applied too strict a construction of what constituted a claim falling within the policy decision.

Mrs Ip pointed out that except as indicated above, the other representative applicants' appeals were dismissed. For the formal disposal of the appeals of all the applicants in these three appeals, the Government and the applicants' solicitors were directed to consult together to draw up and submit a draft of formal orders for the CFA's approval.

"We will not tolerate any violation of the law or actions which disturb social stability. The Police will take appropriate security and contingency measures," she concluded.

ROA claimants who are in need of counselling may call the following hotlines round the clock: 2342 2255 and 18288.

End/Thursday, January 10, 2002

NNNN

Email this article