遞解離境令是否違反人權法案？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：UBAMAKA EDWARD WILSON v SECRETARY FOR SECURITY and DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION - 法院：終審法院 (Court of Final Appeal, CFA) - 法官：馬道立首席法官、陳兆愷常任法官、李義常任法官、鄧楨常任法官、Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe非常任法官 - 判決日期：2012年12月21日 ### 案情摘要 上訴人是一名尼日利亞國民，因販毒在香港被定罪並服刑24年。在服刑期間，他得知尼日利亞有一項新法律，規定在國外被定罪的尼日利亞公民可能因同一罪行再次被起訴。保安局於1999年對上訴人發出遞解離境令，將其遞解回尼日利亞。上訴人於2008年提出司法覆核，質疑遞解離境令的有效性，理由是若被遞解回尼日利亞，他將面臨雙重審判（double jeopardy）及殘酷、不人道或有辱人格的待遇或懲罰（CIDTP）的實質風險，這將違反《香港人權法案》所保障的權利。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於《香港人權法案條例》（HKBORO）第11條的範圍和效力，特別是該條款與《香港人權法案》（BOR）第3條（禁止殘酷、不人道或有辱人格的待遇或懲罰）和第11(6)條（禁止雙重審判）的關係。上訴人認為，第11條違憲，或應被限縮解釋，使其不能排除對BOR第3條和第11(6)條的依賴。答辯方則認為，第11條完全排除了對這些權利的依賴，因為上訴人是無權進入和留在香港的人。 ### 判決理由 終審法院裁定，《香港人權法案條例》第11條在解釋上必須受第5條的規限。由於第5條明確規定BOR第3條所保障的權利（禁止殘酷、不人道或有辱人格的待遇或懲罰）是不可減免且絕對的權利，即使在國家緊急狀態下亦然，因此第11條不能排除對這些權利的依賴。法院強調，對權利條文應作寬泛解釋，對限制權利的條文應作狹窄解釋。然而，對於BOR第11(6)條（禁止雙重審判），由於其既非不可減免亦非絕對權利，且僅適用於香港境內，故第11條可排除對其的依賴。法院進一步指出，上訴人未能證明他將面臨殘酷、不人道或有辱人格的待遇或懲罰的「實質風險」或「最低嚴重程度」。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多個案例，包括《Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration》(1999) 2 HKCFAR 4，確立了憲法性文件應採目的性解釋原則，以及對權利條文應作寬泛解釋，對限制權利的條文應作狹窄解釋。此外，法院還參考了歐洲人權法院（European Court of Human Rights）的《Soering v United Kingdom》(1989) 11 EHRR 439 和英國上議院（House of Lords）的《R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator》[2004] 2 AC 323 等案例，以闡明禁止殘酷、不人道或有辱人格的待遇或懲罰的絕對性和不可減免性。 ### 裁決與命令 終審法院一致駁回上訴。法院裁定，雖然《香港人權法案條例》第11條不能排除對《香港人權法案》第3條的依賴，但上訴人未能證明他將面臨殘酷、不人道或有辱人格的待遇或懲罰的實質風險。至於雙重審判的申索，法院裁定第11條排除了對《香港人權法案》第11(6)條的依賴。法院作出臨時訟費命令，不作訟費判令。 ### 判決啟示 本判決確立了《香港人權法案條例》第11條在解釋上必須受第5條規限，即禁止殘酷、不人道或有辱人格的待遇或懲罰的權利是不可減免且絕對的，即使對於無權進入和留在香港的人亦然。這對香港的移民法和人權保障具有重要意義，確保了某些核心人權在任何情況下都受到保護。然而，法院也明確指出，雙重審判的權利不屬於此類絕對權利，且通常不具跨國效力。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: UBAMAKA EDWARD WILSON v SECRETARY FOR SECURITY and DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION - Court: Court of Final Appeal (CFA) - Judge: Chief Justice Ma, Mr Justice Chan PJ, Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ, Mr Justice Tang PJ and Lord Walker of Gestingthorpe NPJ - Date of Judgment: 21 December 2012 ### Factual Background The appellant, a Nigerian national, was convicted of drug trafficking in Hong Kong and sentenced to 24 years' imprisonment. While serving his sentence, he learned of a new Nigerian law that could lead to re-prosecution for the same offense if convicted abroad. The Secretary for Security issued a deportation order against the appellant in 1999, seeking to deport him to Nigeria. In 2008, the appellant initiated judicial review proceedings to challenge the validity of the deportation order, arguing that if deported to Nigeria, he would face a real risk of double jeopardy and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment (CIDTP), which would violate his rights under the Hong Kong Bill of Rights. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal questions in dispute concerned the scope and effect of section 11 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (HKBORO), particularly its interaction with Article 3 (prohibition of CIDTP) and Article 11(6) (prohibition of double jeopardy) of the Bill of Rights (BOR). The appellant contended that section 11 was unconstitutional or should be narrowly construed so as not to preclude reliance on BOR Articles 3 and 11(6). The respondents argued that section 11 entirely disapplied these rights for persons not having the right to enter and remain in Hong Kong. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Final Appeal held that section 11 of the HKBORO must be construed subject to section 5. Since section 5 explicitly states that the rights protected by BOR Article 3 (prohibition of CIDTP) are non-derogable and absolute, even in times of national emergency, section 11 cannot preclude reliance on these rights. The Court emphasized that a generous interpretation should be given to provisions conferring rights, and a narrow interpretation to provisions restricting rights. However, for BOR Article 11(6) (prohibition of double jeopardy), as it is neither non-derogable nor absolute and generally applies only within Hong Kong's territorial limits, section 11 could preclude its reliance. The Court further found that the appellant failed to establish a "real risk" or "minimum level of severity" of CIDTP. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The judgment cited several cases, including Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration (1999) 2 HKCFAR 4, which established the principle of purposive interpretation for constitutional instruments and the generous interpretation of rights provisions. The Court also referred to European Court of Human Rights cases like Soering v United Kingdom (1989) 11 EHRR 439 and House of Lords cases such as R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] 2 AC 323 to illustrate the absolute and non-derogable nature of the prohibition against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Final Appeal unanimously dismissed the appeal. The Court ruled that while section 11 of the HKBORO could not preclude reliance on BOR Article 3, the appellant failed to demonstrate a real risk of CIDTP. Regarding the double jeopardy claim, the Court held that section 11 precluded reliance on BOR Article 11(6). A costs order nisi was made, with no order as to costs. ### Key Takeaways This judgment establishes that section 11 of the HKBORO must be construed subject to section 5, meaning the right against cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment is non-derogable and absolute, even for persons without the right to enter and remain in Hong Kong. This has significant implications for immigration law and human rights protection in Hong Kong, ensuring certain core human rights are protected under all circumstances. However, the Court also clarified that the right against double jeopardy is not an absolute right and generally does not have extraterritorial effect. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.