立法會行政指令是否違憲？其他

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：HKSAR v FONG KWOK SHAN CHRISTINE (方國珊) - 法院：終審法院 (Court of Final Appeal, CFA) - 法官：Ribeiro PJ, Tang PJ, Fok PJ - 判決日期：2017年2月8日 ### 案情摘要 本案申請人FONG KWOK SHAN CHRISTINE (方國珊) 尋求就高等法院原訟法庭的判決上訴至終審法院。原訟法庭法官黃崇厚（Wong J）駁回申請人的上訴後，根據《立法會(權力及特權)條例》(Cap 382) 第20(b)條，認證了兩個涉及重大和普遍重要法律觀點的問題，涉及《行政指令》第11條及第12(1)條的合憲性。申請人隨後向終審法院上訴委員會申請上訴許可 (leave to appeal)。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案核心法律爭議在於《立法會(權力及特權)條例》(Cap 382) 第20(b)條所制定的《行政指令》第11條及第12(1)條，是否與《基本法》第27條及《香港人權法案》第16條所保障的言論自由原則不符，從而導致這些條文違憲。終審法院上訴委員會需決定是否就這些問題授予上訴許可。 ### 判決理由 終審法院上訴委員會認為，高等法院原訟法庭所認證的兩個問題，確實具有足夠的重大和普遍重要性，值得授予上訴許可 (leave to appeal)。委員會亦認為這些問題具有合理可辯性 (reasonably arguable)。委員會指出，中級上訴法院在認證問題時，必須先確信該問題具有合理可辯性，而非僅由上訴委員會判斷。委員會拒絕基於實質及嚴重不公 (substantial and grave injustice) 的理由授予上訴許可。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 終審法院上訴委員會批准申請人就高等法院原訟法庭認證的兩個法律問題上訴。委員會拒絕基於實質及嚴重不公的理由授予上訴許可。上訴聆訊日期將另行排定。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申，中級上訴法院在認證具有重大和普遍重要性的法律問題時，必須同時評估該問題是否具有合理可辯性。這澄清了上訴許可申請程序中，下級法院與上訴委員會各自的職責範圍。判決強調了言論自由原則在香港法律體系中的重要性，以及相關法例合憲性審查的必要性。 --- ### 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: HKSAR v FONG KWOK SHAN CHRISTINE (方國珊) - Court: Court of Final Appeal (CFA) - Judge: Ribeiro PJ, Tang PJ, Fok PJ - Date of Judgment: 8 February 2017 ### Factual Background The applicant, FONG KWOK SHAN CHRISTINE, sought leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal from a judgment of the Court of First Instance. Wong J, after dismissing the applicant's appeal, certified two questions as raising points of law of great and general importance under section 20(b) of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap 382), concerning the constitutionality of sections 11 and 12(1) of the Administrative Instructions. The applicant subsequently applied to the Court of Final Appeal's Appeal Committee for leave to appeal. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was whether sections 11 and 12(1) of the Administrative Instructions, enacted pursuant to section 20(b) of the Legislative Council (Powers and Privileges) Ordinance (Cap 382), are inconsistent with the principle of freedom of speech guaranteed by Article 27 of the Basic Law and Article 16 of the Bill of Rights, rendering them unconstitutional. The Appeal Committee had to decide whether to grant leave to appeal on these questions. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Final Appeal Appeal Committee was satisfied that the two questions certified by the Court of First Instance were of sufficiently great and general importance to merit leave to appeal. The Committee also found them to be reasonably arguable. The Committee clarified that an intermediate appellate court, when certifying a question, must be satisfied that it is reasonably arguable, not just the Appeal Committee. Leave to appeal on the substantial and grave injustice basis was refused. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of Final Appeal Appeal Committee granted the applicant leave to appeal on the two legal questions certified by the Court of First Instance. Leave to appeal on the substantial and grave injustice basis was refused. The hearing date for the appeal will be fixed later. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms that an intermediate appellate court, when certifying a point of law of great and general importance, must also assess its reasonable arguability. This clarifies the respective roles of the lower courts and the Appeal Committee in the leave to appeal process. The decision underscores the significance of the principle of freedom of speech in Hong Kong's legal system and the necessity of constitutional review for related legislation. --- ### 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.