羅便臣 v. 香港特別行政區政府 入境事務處人事登記處處長 郭俊峯先生

HCAL 2669/2025

[2025] HKCFI 6148

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 2669 OF 2025

________________________

________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

A.  Introduction

1.  By Form 86 dated 2 December 2025, the Applicant seeks leave to apply for judicial review apparently so as to challenge an alleged duty and/or refusal by the Commissioner for Registration (“Commissioner”) to assign new Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (“HKSAR”) Identity Card (“HKIC”) numbers to those Hong Kong residents who have such a need (following the resumption of sovereignty by the PRC over Hong Kong). The Form 86 names the Commissioner as both Putative Respondent and Putative Interested Party.

2.  The Applicant seeks an order of mandamus, apparently to require the Commissioner to assign new HKIC numbers to those in need. On the Form 86, the grounds upon which that relief is sought are stated to be (in English translation):

The Commissioner of Registration of the Immigration Department of the Government of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region is responsible for resolving nationality -related issues during the implementation of the constitution.

3.  Having considered the materials provided with the application, it seems to me that it can appropriately be dealt with on paper.

4.  This is my Decision.

B.  No Merit

5.  The application has no merit.

6.  First, I think the Form 86 failed to identify any proper law grounds of review, on which relief is sought. Merely identifying that there is an alleged responsibility does not identify any public law error in the execution of that responsibility. This is a breach of the mandatory requirements in Order 53 rule 3 of the Rules of the High Court. It is trite that an applicant for leave to apply for judicial review must identify on the Form 86 the public law grounds which the applicant says are of sufficient merit for the grant of leave. It is not for the Court to try to identify grounds for an applicant. This alone is fatal to the application.

7.  Further, in his supporting affirmation, the Applicant merely states that:

(1)  In 1982, he was assigned a HKIC number for the first time by the UK Government.

(2)  The HKIC number assigned to him earlier has been used since 1982.

(3)  On 1 July 1997, the HKSAR was established.

(4)  Using the same HKIC number creates the problem of dual nationality (i.e. British and Chinese) leading to the Government’s social welfare responsibility both inside and outside the HKSAR.

(5)  After the handling of his complaint by the Legislative Council (“LegCo”) Secretariat, the Immigration Department has not yet resolved the problem.

8.  The affirmation also attaches copies of: (1) his Certificate of Registered Particulars dated 25 August 2025, which sets out the Registration of Persons records relating to the registered particulars of the Applicant under his HKIC; (2) his complaint form dated 1 September 2025 filed to the LegCo Secretariat; (3) his HKIC and passports; and (4) the LegCo Secretariat’s holding reply dated 29 September 2025 and its substantive reply letter dated 24 October 2025 (in reply to enquiry/complaint about the subject, “Regarding assistance provided to overseas Hong Kong resident to renew HKIC” (Ref.: CP/C 912/2025) – which seems not directly related to the Applicant’s complaint in the present application for leave to apply for judicial review).

9.  Nothing in the materials filed by the Applicant identifies any arguable public law wrong committed by the Commissioner.

10.  Any complaint by the Applicant as to same HKIC numbers used by Hong Kong residents before and after the handover in 1997 is not a matter of any arguable concern for this Court. In any event, it is well settled that the HKIC operates merely as a document of identity, and does not of itself create any rights. Instead, an HKIC serves the fundamental purpose of identifying the holder as a particular individual, with certain details or particulars put in as identification features of the individual such as the name, date of birth and sex. The Applicant does not suggest that there is anything incorrect in any of the particulars on his HKIC or provided to him in the Certificate of Registered Particulars.

C.  Result

11.  The Applicant has failed to identify any reasonably arguable public law grounds for review with any realistic prospect of success.

12.  In those circumstances, the application for leave to apply for judicial review is dismissed.

13.  In passing, I note that the Applicant previously filed another application for leave to apply for judicial review in HCAL 1431/2024, to seek to challenge a certified copy of his birth registration. That application also had no merit, and it was dismissed by me in my decision dated 4 October 2024, [2024] HKCFI 2479.

14.  I make no order as to costs.