Social News
Written by: Zhu Dixin
2021-06-11 20:11
Last update date: 2021-06-11 20:11
Cheung Chau review Wang Guo Zhuojian and four others filed for judicial review on the implementation of "two inspections in one place" at the West Kowloon Station of the High Speed Rail.
After they were ruled to lose in the High Court, they appealed to the Court of Appeal.
After hearing the submissions, the three judges of the Court of Appeal issued a verdict dismissed today (11th), stating that the "co-location, two inspections" did not violate the Basic Law and did not compromise Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy.
The four people who applied for review: Guo Zhuojian, Lu Zhiheng, Liang Songheng and Liang Guoxiong.
The applicant pointed out that the provisions of Articles 18 and 19 of the Basic Law require that the national laws listed in Annex III of the Basic Law take effect in Hong Kong, and that Hong Kong enjoys independent judicial power and the power of final adjudication.
The "Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong High Speed Rail (Single Site, Two Inspections) Ordinance" stipulates that the establishment of ports in Hong Kong and the implementation of Mainland laws are in violation of Articles 18 and 19.
Establishing a port for immigration control is constitutional
The judge of the Court of Appeal refuted this statement, saying that according to the Basic Law, Hong Kong enjoys a high degree of autonomy and has the right to establish a mainland port at West Kowloon Station.
At the same time, Article 154 of the Basic Law states that Hong Kong can implement immigration control on people entering and leaving Hong Kong from various places.
The establishment of Mainland ports at West Kowloon Station and the implementation of immigration control are precisely the exercise of relevant powers.
The disagreement clause should be put in Annex III
In addition, Senior Counsel Martin Li, who represented Lu Zhiheng, pointed out that the appropriate approach should be to include these provisions in Annex III of the Basic Law. The judge of the Court of Appeal disagrees, saying that the national laws included in Annex III will be implemented in Hong Kong. It is not limited to the West Kowloon Station of the High Speed Rail.
The Court of Appeal held that the "Guangzhou-Shenzhen-Hong Kong High Speed Rail (Co-location, Two Inspections) Ordinance" did not violate the Basic Law and did not compromise Hong Kong's high degree of autonomy.
Case number: CACV8, CACV10, CACV87, CACV88/2019
The Legislative Council passed the Huanggang Port to implement a bill for the implementation of the two inspections in one place. Members of the Council commented on the use of land
Huanggang Port Reconstruction｜Hong Kong and Shenzhen agree to implement "co-location, two inspections" to pay symbolic rent to Shenzhen
Co-location, Two-inspection Review Appeal | Applicant questioned Hong Kong’s implementation of Mainland law in violation of the Basic Law
01News
Court of Appeal for Judicial Review of the Basic Law of the Two Prosecutions