Needle-free paper case. Interpretation of the judgment | Officials say the government's interpretation seems to be playing with words to rewrite old descriptions

The government earlier announced that the 20,000 certificates of exemption issued by 7 doctors involved in spamming "needle-free paper" were invalid, and was immediately challenged by Guo Zhuojian, known as the "King of Cheung Chau Review". The court today (21st) Guo wins the case.

Judge Gao Haowen pointed out in the judgment that the government stated in the press release that the needle-free paper involved in the case would be "invalid" and "considered invalid", but failed to quote what legislation could be used. His explanation in court was more like playing with words. Rewriting the old description, the judge held that even though the Ordinance referred to the Secretary having broad powers in emergency situations, he did not consider it sufficient to give the Secretary the power to make a decision to repeal.

The judge also mentioned that some members have been criticized for questioning the government's practices. The judge pointed out in the judgment that a responsible member must monitor the government's decisions and have a legal basis. This behavior should not be regarded as anti-government.

The applicant is Guo Zhuojian and the respondent is Lu Chongmao, Director of the Medical and Health Bureau.

Guo asked the court to review Lu's decision that the medical exemption certificates (commonly known as needle-free papers) issued by the seven doctors were invalid.

Alleging that the government has rewritten statements to accommodate judicial review

Judge Gao Howman said in his judgment that the statutory powers of the heads of government departments come from the law, not from the press release.

The dispute in this case is whether the bureau's decision in the press release comes from its statutory authority.

He pointed to the government's press release on September 27 this year, which stated that the needle-free paper involved in the case would be "invalid" and "considered invalid", but did not mention what legislation was invoked.

The lawyer representing the government explained at the hearing yesterday that the "invalid" and "deemed invalid" in the draft meant "not accepted", and that the announcement was only used to inform the public that the government intends not to recognize the relevant exemptions. Needle paper.

However, the judge considered that this statement was an attempt to play "word games" and rewrite previous statements.

In this judicial review, Yi Qian distorted the statement and believed that the Secretary had made a decision at that time, and it was not just such a "tendency".

I regret to say that (the government) seems to be playing with words and rewriting old descriptions in this (interpretation of the press release). However, it seems to have made an "inclined" statement for a specific legal dispute.

I regret to say that these points seem to me to be an attempt to play with words and to rewrite the historical narrative. Whilst I have accepted that the Secretary has not sought to avoid judicial scrutiny of the relevant decisions, the presentation of evidence seems to me to be 'slanted' for a particular line of intended legal argument. Judge Gao Haowen

Judge Gao Haowen stressed that the provisions of the law did not give the Commissioner the power to abolish the problematic needle-free paper.

(file picture)

The government's lawyers also pointed out that the relevant provisions involving needle-free paper should be considered based on the overall environmental analysis.

However, the judge did not agree with the analysis method, and considered that the relevant legislation should be reviewed, and pointed out that the main issue in this case is the Prevention and Control of Disease (Vaccine Pass) Regulation (Cap. 599L) Regulations 5(2) and 17 , so that the doctor can issue needle-free paper.

At the same time, when there is a dispute over needle-free paper, there is no law in the regulation to deal with it.

Extensive power does not mean the right to abolish needle-free paper

Regarding the government's claim that the ordinance grants the government broad powers to deal with public health emergencies, and that the directive is an administrative measure, the judge questioned whether the move is equivalent to the government's decision to abolish needle-free paper, and believes that the government has never been able to persuade The court was also unable to explain the authority under which the government made such an instruction.

The judge also pointed out that the issue in this case is not only that the Secretary has the right to make such an instruction, but whether he made this decision through this instruction, that is, the questionable needle-free paper is invalid.

Although the government's lawyer reiterated that the government has no intention to develop privileges in the original legislation, the judge agreed with this statement, but he believed that the Secretary's decision to abolish the batch of needle-free papers created an exemption other than immunity. The provisions did not entitle the Secretary to abolish the needle-free papers. power, and he cannot claim to have achieved this goal by administrative means.

Legislator Jiang Yuhuan had earlier expressed doubts about the government's abolition of the 20,000 needle-free paper, but was criticized.

(Photo by Zhang Haowei)

Parliamentarians have the responsibility to question the government's suspected failure to comply with the law

In addition, Legislative Council member Jiang Yuhuan earlier questioned that the government's actions had no legal basis. The judge also "rehabilitated" Jiang in his sentence, pointing out that a legally qualified member of the Legislative Council also raised the question, but unfortunately the member did not later criticized.

The judge pointed out that his challenge should not be viewed as pro-government or anti-government, and the dispute is a question of legality and illegality.

A responsible member of Parliament should be required to make the government's decision, and there is a law to follow.

Unfortunately, one MP was criticized for raising the question as if she was attacking the government.

The problem is not that it is a choice of "pro-government" or "anti-government", but the desire to ensure that the government, in exercising its power, is doing what is legitimate at all times.

It is unfortunate that the legislator subsequently faced criticism for raising the question, as though to do so were somehow an attack on the Government. The question does not identify a choice between being 'pro-Government' or 'anti-Government'; it identifies a distinction between what is lawful should wish to ensure that the Government acts at all times in accordance with its lawful powers. Justice Gao Haowen

One of the arrested doctors issued 382 needle-free papers daily

The verdict also revealed that the police investigation found that the number of needle-free papers issued by the seven doctors involved in the case was abnormally high. One of the doctors issued 382 papers in one day. Assuming that the doctor worked 8 hours a day, the average number of papers issued per hour was 48.

In September this year, the police successively arrested seven western doctors, accusing them of spamming medical exemption certificates (commonly known as needle-free papers). will not be accepted and will expire on October 12 this year.

Guo Zhuojian submitted a judicial review on the 7th of this month to challenge the government's decision. The court decided on the 11th of this month, the day before the expiration date.

The Supreme Court judge today (21st) ruled in favor of Guo's application and ordered Guo to be awarded legal costs.

Case number: HCAL 1054/2022

▼On September 20, Yau Ma Tei Western Medicine opened 2,000 "needle-free papers" and was arrested▼

+4

▼On September 22, the police arrested three doctors who were suspected of spamming "needle-free paper"▼

+1

The government earlier pointed out that the "Medical Exemption Certificates for New Crown Vaccination" issued by seven doctors suspected of spamming "needle-free paper" will expire on October 12.

The judge today ruled that the government lost the case and reversed the decision, and the relevant needle-free paper can continue to be valid.

(Information Services Department)

▼Two western doctors have been charged successively.

▼

Cai Shumei, a female western doctor in Yuen Long, has also been charged with one count of conspiracy to defraud.

(Photo by Liu Anqi)

Needle-free paper | Guo Zhuojian challenged the government to abolish the order to win the lawsuit and get 20,000 yuan of legal fees to continue the free needle-free paper | Guo Zhuojian won the lawsuit and claimed that Hong Kong is the capital of the rule of law. Government's legal use of power Jiang Yuhuan: No anti-government intentions Regret 7 Medical Free Needle Papers︱The government argues that it refuses to accept non-repeal Jiang Yuhuan and denounces language hypocrisy: What's the difference?

7 Medical needle-free paper︱ Jiang Yuhuan reiterates that his remarks are not inappropriate Li Haoran: Lu’s prevention of misconduct is reasonable