KO KAI MING v. SECRETARY FOR EDUCATION

HCAL 1237/2025

[2025] HKCFI 2366

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 1237 OF 2025

________________________

________________

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

A.  Introduction

1.  By his Form 86 dated 22 May 2025, the Applicant names the Secretary for Education as the proposed respondent to his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  However, in the parts of the form which should identify various the matters required by the Rules of the High Court Order 53 rule 3:

(1)  as to the “judgment, order, decision or other proceeding in respect of which relief is sought”, the Applicant has simply stated the word (in capitals) “DECLARATION”;

(2)  there is no description at all as to the “relief sought”; and

(3)  there is also no identification of the “grounds on which relief is sought”.

3.  By way of an attachment to the Applicant’s affirmation filed together with the Form 86, the Applicant says that the judicial review is “about the disclosure of information in the public interest by a government official”.

4.  Having considered the papers, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to deal with this application on paper. This is my Decision.

B.  The Apparent Complaint

5.  In the attachment to his affirmation, the Applicant states the following:

In late February 2025 a student at St Paul’s College died on a trip to the mainland for cultural exchange sanctioned by the Education Bureau. The findings of the subsequent investigation were not disclosed to the public. The Secretary for Education claimed categorically that the unfortunate incident was not related to the excursion and no information could be revealed to the public out of respect for the privacy of the deceased and/or his family.

This smacks of bureaucracy and the lack of sensitivity in dealing with a matter of great importance. The death of a young person is inevitably a tragic event and should not be shrouded in secrecy.

To say that the death was not related to the trip without dive altering the details of the investigation is irresponsible and high-handed. It takes away the public’s right to information which impacts them and the opportunity to scrutinise it.

Secondly, the privacy of the student is not violated if his particulars are withheld.

Thirdly, there is certainly a lot of public interest in the matter because such trips are ongoing and every year a large number of students will make them under the direction of the Education Bureau. It would put the minds of the parents at ease if the Bureau can show its concern for the safety of the students and that it is perfectly capable of anticipating and handling any unforeseen events associated with such an endeavour.

For peace of mind of the public the Secretary should disclose the full facts of the student’s death especially if the tragedy is preventable.

B.  No Merit

6.  There is plainly no merit at all in this application for leave to apply for judicial review.

7.  First, the Applicant has not established that he has standing to make the application. On the face of the materials, he does not.

8.  Secondly, the Applicant has failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of identifying the public law grounds upon which his relief is sought. References to something smacking of bureaucracy or being high-handed do not identify any public law ground for judicial review.

9.  Thirdly, indeed the Applicant identifies no basis at all for suggesting any error on the part of the Secretary in making a statement that the unfortunate incident was not related to the excursion and no information could be revealed to the public out of respect for the privacy of the deceased and/or his family. Judicial review challenges do not arise out of open-ended speculation or hypothesis.

10.  Fourthly, the Applicant appears to confuse matters in which the public might be interested with matters which are in the public interest. They are not the same. I also note that the Form 86 says that there are “nil” interested parties.

11.  Fifthly, other than the mere assertion, the Applicant has not identified why the public have a right to information and an opportunity to scrutinise it as regards the unfortunate death of a student not related to them.

C.  Result

12.  In the circumstances, the Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed. I make no order as to costs.