法律援助署五十周年紀念特刊 | Legal Aid Department 50th Anniversary Commemorative Publication

遞解離境令的有效性 Validity of the deportation order 上訴人： Ubamaka Edward Wilson Appellant: Ubamaka Edward Wilson 答辯人：保安局局長｜入境事務處處長 Respondents: Secretary for Security | Director of Immigration 個案重溫 Case Study 答辯人的理據 ． 《香港人權法案條例》（《人權條例》）第11條 使無權進入及逗留於香港的人，如Ubamaka，不 能援引《人權法案》所保障的憲法權利以反對遞 解離境令。 ． 《人權條例》第11條凌駕《人權法案》所保障的 權利，包括反對被遞解離境的權利。 ． 本案沒有證據證明Ubamaka會遭受任何相當於不 人道的處遇。 相關爭議 ． 1991年，尼日利亞國民Ubamaka因販毒在香港被 判處監禁24年。 ． 1999年，保安局局長（局長）向他發出遞解離境令。 ． 2006年，他因擔心根據尼日利亞法例會再被檢控而 須面對一罪兩審，於是向香港的聯合國難民事務高 級專員辦事處申請難民身分。 ． 2007年，他又根據《禁止酷刑公約》提出聲請， 但有關聲請於同年被拒。 ． 2007年，Ubamaka因行為良好，在服刑16年後提 早獲釋。 ． 在他獲釋後，入境事務處處長（處長）隨即命令把 他遞解返尼日利亞。 ． Ubamaka申請司法覆核，質疑有關遞解離境令的 有效性。 Dispute ． In 1991, Ubamaka, a Nigerian national, was sentenced to 24 years' imprisonment for drug trafficking ． In 1999, the Secretary for Security (“the Secretary”) issued a deportation order against him. ． He applied to the United Nation High Commissioner for Refugees in Hong Kong claiming refugee status in 2006 on the ground that he would be subject to re-prosecution in Nigeria. ． In 2007, he also lodged a separate claimunder the ConventionAgainst Torture but his application was rejected in the same year. ． After having served 16 years of imprisonment, Ubamaka was released from prison for good behaviour in 2007. ． The Director of Immigration (‘the Director”) ordered his deportation to Nigeria immediately after his release. ． Ubamaka instituted judicial review proceedings to challenge the validity of the deportation order. Appellant’s Arguments ． If he were to be deported to Nigeria, he was likely to be prosecuted and punished again for the same charge. ． Deportation would expose him to double jeopardy and would amount to causing him to face inhuman treatment, both prohibited by the Bill of Rights. 上訴人的理據 ． 如被遞解至尼日利亞，他很可能會因同樣罪名而 再次被檢控及懲罰。 ． 執行遞解離境令將使他遭受《人權法案》所禁止 的一罪兩審，以及相當於不人道的處遇。 終審法院民事上訴2011年第15號 FACV 15/2011 Respondents’Argument ． Section 11 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance ("BOR Ordinance") precludes persons, like Ubamaka, who do not have the right to enter and remain in Hong Kong, from relying on the constitutional rights protected by the Bill of Rights to challenge a deportation order. ． Section 11 of the BOR Ordinance prevails over the rights contained in the Bill of Rights including the rights against deportation. ． The evidence in this case did not establish Ubamaka would face anything amounting to inhuman treatment. 終審法院最終判決日期：2012年12月21日 Date of Court of Final Appeal Judgment: 21 December 2012 類別：民事 －人權 Category: Civil - Human Rights P.74 法治基石、彰顯公義 Legal Aid for the Rule of Law and Justice