IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 216 OF 2000
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 11/2000)
Coram: Hon. Rogers VP, Le Pichon, JA and Chung, J in Court
Date of Hearing: 5 December 2001
Date of Judgment: 5 December 2001
J U D G M E N T
Hon. Rogers VP:
1. We will give leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal but, in doing so, I make it perfectly clear that, for my part, I do notthink the questions are the appropriate questions. The matter may well have repercussions and involve approximately one million peoplewho are non-permanent residents of Hong Kong. The questions of the right to leave Hong Kong and the right to travel, and the properinterpretation of the right to travel, are, in my view, very important questions, and for those reasons I am prepared to give leaveto appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, making it clear that I do not consider that the questions as framed are necessarily the correctquestions. Be that as it may, this Court gives leave.
2. As regards the application for stay of proceedings, I cannot see how this would work and, in any event, it is, in my view, totallyunnecessary. If the two decisions which this Court has quashed are restored by the Court of Final Appeal, so be it. That will bethe end of the matter. I do not see that, in the meantime, it puts the Director of Immigration in any difficulties at all.
3. For those reasons, the application for a stay pending the appeal is refused.
Hon. Le Pichon JA:
4. I agree.
Hon. Chung J:
5. I agree.
Mr Paul Harris, instructed by Messrs Jal N Karbhari & Co., for the Applicant/Respondent
Mr William R Marshall, SC, and Mr Lee Tin Yan, instructed by the Department of Justice, for the Respondent/Applicant