Kwok Cheuk Kin V Lam Cheng Yuet Ngor: Government Chastisement of Dissidents and Judicial Review that Never Was?

K. Wong
{"title":"Kwok Cheuk Kin V Lam Cheng Yuet Ngor: Government Chastisement of Dissidents and Judicial Review that Never Was?","authors":"K. Wong","doi":"10.1111/1468-2230.12486","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The Hong Kong Government issued a strongly‐worded official statement, subsequently adopted by the Chief Executive, to publicly condemn an outspoken constitutional law scholar for expressing views which the Government considered unconstitutional. Leave to judicially review the statement was refused by the Court of First Instance of the High Court of Hong Kong on the grounds, inter alia, that a statement lacking in direct legal consequences was outside the ambit of judicial review and, further, the Chief Executive was in any event entitled to comment on public affairs. This note argues that, on a proper understanding of the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court and the theory of the ‘third source’ of governmental power, neither ground should have precluded judicial review.","PeriodicalId":426546,"journal":{"name":"Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Wiley-Blackwell: Modern Law Review","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-2230.12486","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

The Hong Kong Government issued a strongly‐worded official statement, subsequently adopted by the Chief Executive, to publicly condemn an outspoken constitutional law scholar for expressing views which the Government considered unconstitutional. Leave to judicially review the statement was refused by the Court of First Instance of the High Court of Hong Kong on the grounds, inter alia, that a statement lacking in direct legal consequences was outside the ambit of judicial review and, further, the Chief Executive was in any event entitled to comment on public affairs. This note argues that, on a proper understanding of the supervisory jurisdiction of the Court and the theory of the ‘third source’ of governmental power, neither ground should have precluded judicial review.
郭卓坚诉林郑月娥:政府对持不同政见者的惩罚和从未有过的司法审查?
香港政府发表一份措辞强硬的官方声明,公开谴责一位直言不讳的宪制学者发表政府认为违宪的观点,该声明随后获行政长官采纳。香港高等法院原讼法庭拒绝给予司法覆核该声明的许可,理由包括一份没有直接法律后果的声明不在司法覆核的范围内,此外,行政长官无论如何都有权就公共事务发表意见。本文认为,在正确理解法院监督管辖权和“第三来源”理论的基础上;对于政府权力,任何理由都不应排除司法审查。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信