|
cacv 320/2004
in the high court of the
hong kong special administrative region
court of appeal
civil appeal no. 320 of 2004
(on appeal from HCAL NO. 186 of 2002)
______________________
| |
In the matter of an application by SUN JIE for an order of certiorari |
| |
and |
| |
In the matter of the Determination by the Registration of Persons Tribunal dated 6th August 2002 dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the registration officer not to issue to the Applicant a Hong Kong Permanent identity card and the finding by the Tribunal that the Applicant does not have the right of abode in Hong Kong |
BETWEEN
| |
SUN JIE also known as SUN, ALEX J. |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
REGISTRATION OF PERSONS TRIBUNAL |
1st Respondent |
| |
COMMISSIONER OF REGISTRATION |
2nd Respondent |
| |
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
3rd Respondent |
Before: Hon Rogers VP, Le Pichon JA and Sakhrani J in Court
Date of Hearing: 30 May 2006
Date of Judgment: 30 May 2006
Date of Handing Down Reasons for Judgment: 21 June 2006
_________________________
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT
_________________________
Hon Rogers VP:
1. This was an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under the provisions of section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484. This court refused the application for leave to appeal with reasons to be given in writing, which we now do.
2. The background to this application can be gleaned from the judgment of this court dated 13 December 2005. The question which was said to be of great general or public importance was:
“Whether a period of absence from Hong Kong when the propositus has no permission to stay in Hong Kong will fatally discontinue his ordinary residence for the purpose of deciding his eligibility for “permanent resident” status.”
3. Mr Yau, who appeared on behalf of the applicant, indicated that although the reasoning in this court’s judgment was logical and was simple to understand, it, in effect, added a further dimension to the meaning of ordinary residence. For my part, I find it difficult to understand how it does.
4. Somewhat as an ancillary argument, it was contended that the effect of this court’s decision denied the applicant the opportunity to have the Director of Immigration exercise a discretion in his favour to allow him to remain in Hong Kong even if he did not have any right to demand that.
5. In my view this, too, cannot be a ground for quashing the decision of the Director who had rejected the applicant’s application for verification of eligibility for a permanent identity card. In summary, I regret to have to say that I see no merit in the application.
Hon Le Pichon JA:
6. I agree.
Hon Sakhrani J:
7. I also agree.
(Anthony Rogers)
Vice-President |
(Doreen Le Pichon)
Justice of Appeal |
(Arjan H Sakhrani)
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
Mr Albert Yau, instructed by Messrs Hastings & Co., for the Applicant
Mr Daniel Wan, instructed by Department of Justice, for the 2nd & 3rd Respondents
Application for leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal dismissed: see FAMV20/2006 dated 28 September 2006
|