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

Judgment of Court of Final Appeal ． The questions were to be resolved under the domestic law of Hong Kong and not by any purported direct application of the provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights or by any purported adjudication of an issue on the plane of international law. ． On the double jeopardy ground, the CFA agreed that the Appellant could not invoke the protection of Article 11(6) of BOR against the execution of the deportation order because such protection has been excluded by section 11 of the BOR Ordinance. Since the Appellant was a person not having the right to enter and remain in Hong Kong, the deportation order was unaffected by the provisions of BOR Ordinance including Article 11(6) of BOR. ． On the issue of inhuman treatment, the CFA ruled that the Government was under a duty to consider Ubamaka’s claim of inhuman treatment but the evidence in this case did not show anything approaching treatment or punishment specified under the BOR. ． The CFAdismissed the appeal by Ubamaka. 終審法院的判決 ． 本案的問題須根據香港本地法律解決，而非任何 據稱是直接援用《公民權利和政治權利國際公約》 的條文，或任何據稱是在國際法的層面對某個問 題作出的判決。 ． 關於一罪兩審的理據，終審法院同意，上訴人不可 援引《人權法案》第11(6)條所給予的保障，反對 執行遞解離境令，因為該保障已被《人權條例》第 11條的條文豁除。由於上訴人無權進入及逗留於香 港，有關的遞解離境令不會受《人權條例》的條文 （包括《人權法案》第11(6)條）所影響。 ． 至於不人道處遇的問題，終審法院裁定，政府有 責任考慮Ubamaka就這方面提出的聲請。不過， 本案的證據未能證明Ubamaka會遭受相當於《人 權法案》所訂明的處遇或懲罰。 ． 終審法院駁回Ubamaka的上訴。 Court of First Instance and Court of Appeal Judgments ． The Court of First Instance (CFI) allowed the application for judicial review, quashed the deportation order and ruled that the administrative detention in question was unlawful. ． On appeal by the Secretary and the Director, the decision of the CFI was reversed by the Court of Appeal. ． Ubamaka appealed to the Court of Final Appeal (CFA). 原訟法庭及上訴法庭的判決 ． 原訟法庭批准司法覆核申請、撤銷遞解離境令， 並裁定有關的行政拘留不合法。 ． 在局長及處長提出上訴後，上訴法庭推翻原訟法 庭的決定。 ． Ubamaka於是向終審法院提出上訴。 Grounds of Appeal ． If deported to Nigeria, he would face a serious risk of prosecution and punishment again for the same conduct – drug trafficking. ． The deportation order exposed him to the risks of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and double jeopardy prohibited by Articles 3 and 11(6) of the Bill of Rights respectively under section 8 of the BOR Ordinance (Cap. 383). ． The rule prohibiting refoulement to face cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment constitutes a norm of customary international law which had been incorporated into the common law of Hong Kong. 上訴理據 ． 如被遞解至尼日利亞，他會就同一行為，即販毒 而面對再被檢控及懲罰的重大風險。 ． 有關的遞解離境令會使他面對《人權條例》（第 383章）第8條所載《人權法案》第3及第11(6)條 所分別禁止的殘忍、不人道或侮辱的處遇或懲罰， 以及一罪兩審的風險。 ． 禁止遣返難民使面對殘忍、不人道或侮辱的處遇 或懲罰這規則，已成為一項國際習慣法的規範， 這項規範也已納入香港的普通法內。 Going Forward ． The decision of the CFA clarifies the constitutional validity, scope and effect of the reservation provision relating to immigration legislation contained in section 11 of the BOR Ordinance; and the impact of that reservation provision on the rights of protection against double jeopardy and torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment provided by the BOR. ． On 2 July 2013, the Government announced that there would be assessment of claims for non-refoulement protection against torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment and/or persecution under the Unified Screening Mechanism, which commenced operation on 3 March 2014 to determine claims for non-refoulement protection against expulsion, return or extradition fromHong Kong. Since then, a large number of claimants went through the screening mechanism to determine their eligibility for non-refoulement status. 發展路向 ． 終審法院的裁決釐清了《人權條例》第11條所載 有關出入境法例的保留條文在憲法上的有效性、 適用範圍及影響，以及該保留條文如何影響《人 權法案》所保障的免受一罪兩審及酷刑或殘忍、 不人道或侮辱的處遇或懲罰的權利。 ． 政府於2013年7月2日宣布制定「統一審核機制」， 審核包括會受到酷刑或殘忍、不人道或侮辱的處遇 或懲罰及 ／或迫害的「免遣返」保護聲請。「統一 審核機制」於2014年3月3日開始實施，就反對驅 逐、遣返或引渡離開香港的「免遣返」保護聲請 作出裁定。自此，大量聲請人經由該審核機制確 定是否合資格免受遣返。 法律援助署五十周年紀念特刊 P.75