Ng Siu Tung v The Director of Immigration (“Ng Siu Tung”) arose from the constitutional controversies following 2 previous decision of HKCFA: Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration (“Ng Ka Ling”) and Cham Kam Nga v Director of Immigration (“Chan Kam Nga”). The main issue in these 2 cases was whether the children of some HK Permanent Residents (“HKPR”) enjoyed the right of abode in Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (“HKSAR”) in keeping with the provisions of the Basic Law . Although there was no exact estimation of the number of these children, it is believed the members were to be extensive.
The decisions were subsequently overturned by the Standing Committee of the National People's Congress (“NPCSC”), which issued a free-standing interpretation on the relevant provisions. Those who would have been eligible to enjoy the right of abode and stay in Hong Kong under the Ng Ka Ling and Chan Kam Nga judgments had to return to Mainland China .
Going back to the Ng Siu Tung case, it was held by the majority with Bokhary PJ dissenting, that "judgment previously rendered" only refers to actual parties to the case and so wouldn’t benefit the applicants. The doctrine of substantive LE (“SLE”) was also relied on. It was argued, as a result of the general and specific representations by the government, the applicants had a legitimate expectation (“LE”), to which effects should be given, that they would receive the same treatment as the litigants in those two cases.
The judgments delivered by the majority and the minority in Ng Siu Tung presents 2 different approaches as to the doctrine of SLE. The majority’s stand retreats from the Coughlan case, whereas the minority departs from the majority. The minority’s stand is more expansiv...
... middle of paper ...
...ice, and that any change would be a contemplated one which is not applied in such rush as to override people’s LEs. So, Bokhary PJ’s approach does not mean administrators will be overly limited in the use of their discretions.
Ideologically, although there may be unease towards Bokhary PJ’s approach that it might induce administrators to take steps to weaken the courts’ role in giving acknowledgement to SLE and they may merely be as ambiguous as probable in their statements so as to avoid creating expectations in the first place, I believe this is unlikely to happen. It’s habitual policy statements are often stated in general terms afore specifics capable of generating an expectation are included later on.
Lastly, I am of the view that Bokhary PJ’s approach is the more suitable way forward to develop the doctrine of SLE from both conceptual and ideological stands.
The case of The People Vs. Hall in 1854, was about George Hall a white miner, who murdered Ling Sing a chinese miner, over a dispute that they had. It was disputed in the California Supreme Court in 1854, with the majority of opinion delivered by Chief Justice Hugh Murray with the concurrence of Justice Solomon Heydenfeldt. In the hearing, George hall appealed to the verdict, arguing that the 394th section of the Act Concerning Civil Cases provides that no Indian or Negro shall be allowed to testify as a witness in any action or åproceeding in which a white person is a party. The issue with this appeal was that the 394th section of the Act Concerning Civil Cases, did not included chinese or any other different ethnic background that was not listed in that section. For Chinese did not immigrated to America, until 1852, in which they were coming for work after the economic fall out of the Opium War of 1840.
... decision also brings suspiscion about whether or not if things go south is he going to take any accountability. In conclusion, this case truly represents the use of unauthorized practice of law.
Constituted discrimination contrary to the BC Human Rights Act, S.B.C 1984, c. 22, changed to the Human Rights Code, R.S.B.C. 1996, c. 210
B. (2010). Immigration and Nationality Law Cases and Materials (4th ed.). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
Another example of the “gap” not closing anytime soon is a case where Australia did not comply and enforce a UN decision. “A” is a Cambodian male, born in 1934. He arrived by boat to Australia in 1989 with his Vietnamese wife and their children, it was the same year the Australian Government proclaimed people fleeing post-genocidal violence in Cambodia to be “economic refugees”. The family was detained in immigration detention for more than four years. The family had no communication with a lawyer for almost a year and, through movement between detention centres in different Australian states, the family lost contact with the legal support they did acquire. 1992 was when the family joined with other Cambodian detainees to challenge in the Federal Court of Australia the Migration Amendment Act 1992 which impeded their release from detention. In “direct response”, the Australian Government rushed through further amendments to the Migration Act 1958, consolidating mandatory detention in law and confining “compensation for
The circumstances in which officials granted and denied political asylum was ambiguous as shown in Xin-Chang v. Slattery and Chen Zhou Chai v. Carroll. Zhang had claimed that he had undergone sterilization as a punishment for having a second child, and therefore, was under persecution based on the family planning policy. However, judges determined that Zhang’s punishment was not for any political dissent, but was a direct consequence of his failure to comply with the one-child policy. The judges denied his motion for political asylum. However, months later, judges consulted matters regarding Chai and decided to approve his petition for political asylum. Likewise to Zhang, Chai claimed to be persecuted under the family planning policy. However, Chai had upset a powerful neighbor, which the judges found to be ground for political dissent. Yet, in Zhang’s case, he had refused multiple times to join the Communist Party, but the judges did not find this to be a form of political dissent. Without clarifying what constitutes political dissent, the decisions made have been
... middle of paper ... ... Gonzaga Law Review 33.3 (1998): 653-668. HeinOnline.com -.
His definition of what constitutes as significant social change is entirely too narrow. Rosenberg asserts on national changes in officials' behavior directly caused by court decisions and utterly distorts how social change through court action occurs. By defining significant social change so meticulously and requiring specific empirical referents as evidence of judicial impact, he taints his analysis in favor of the constrained view. Rosenberg misstates the true extent of the Court's power not only because his models of influence and judging are misconceived, but also because he utilizes flawed methods for identifying causal connections. Further, Rosenberg paints an unfairly picture of the Supreme Court because he avoids the examination of the work of lower courts. The Supreme Court normally does not implement the rules it develops, rather depends on lower courts to apply its rules in particular cases. To be an effective analysis of Supreme Court influence, Rosenberg cannot neglect the application of its decisions by lower courts. By refusing to pursue this rich line of inquiry Rosenberg's analysis is severely impoverished and his conclusions are brought into question. Finally, Rosenberg's definition of what constitutes the significant social reform that he pursues to examine is quite vague. It is unclear how many people must be affected for reform to be considered
Columbia Law Review, 104, 1-20. doi:10.2307/4099343. Reynolds, S. (2009). The 'Standard'. An interview with Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
Along with its historical evolution of its economic, politic and social systems, the Chinese judicial system has been gradually developing. For hundreds of years Chinese judicial system has been proliferating by adopting legal doctrines from other countries however, today the Chinese judicial system as a whole is the result of a rich Chinese history and practical experience. Indeed, for around two millennia China had withheld its own unique legal system. During that time, the notion of “law” equated “punishment”. The Chinese traditional law, pre-1911, was conceived on the basis of an inclusive code containing many types of rules with criminal punishments.
ICL Document, (1988) . ICL- China Constitution: Retrieved March27, 2001 from the World Wide Web: http://www.uni-wuerzburg.de/law/ch00000_.html
...ire judges to set aside their subjective opinions when they apply legal rules. In the case Cameron J looked at the general definition of neutrality which entails not taking a side in a conflict, i.e. unbiased. Neutrality implies not judging the validity of an opinion. Dworkin does not rule out the possibilities of some judgments going wrong, and some being right than others but still maintains that judges have a responsibility to interpret the law, and that they should interpret the law in its best moral light. Dworkin’s point is that we should accept that all legal disputes are solved are solved using the law itself. Hart believes that there can be gaps in law, although there are sources like the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, he still maintains that such sources will at some point prove to be indeterminate, forcing judges to exercise discretion.
...l of International & Comparative Law, Feb 01, 2003; Vol. 31, No. 2, p. 355-384< http://library.ucd.ie:50080/ebsco-w-a/ehost/detail?sid=1b4da043-249c-4912-9950-03a4155cb2aa%40sessionmgr4002&vid=1&hid=4204&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=ofm&AN=502510677> access 14 April 2014.
The courts access these previous judgements through the system of Law reporting. The system of precedents could not work without a precise and comprehensive compilation of the key decisions of superior courts readily available to all who need them. Authoritative reports compiled by legally qualified law reporters are formed prima...
Law Commission accepted that there are compelling reasons due to which the concept of overriding interest cannot be abolished altogether. And denying of overriding status will contradict paramount policies. However, LRA 2002 has affected it in a number ...