The Invisible Constitution in Comparative Perspective

The Constitutional Orders of ‘One Country, Two Systems’ 

241

The operative force of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights and the Hong Kong 

courts’ power of judicial review of legislation on human rights grounds and 

related principles of proportionality have, however, survived the non-adop-

tion of these provisions in the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance. This is 

clear from the case law of the post-1997 era, particularly the CFA’s decisions 

in Ng Kung Siu (on the freedom of expression)

29

 and Leung Kwok Hung (on 

the freedom of assembly and procession).

30

 The Hong Kong courts’ post-1997 

approach to human rights protection, which has not been challenged by lit-

igants or their lawyers in any case and thus represents the consensus of the 

legal community in Hong Kong, is that the courts may review whether any 

legislative or executive action violates the human rights guaranteed by chapter 

III of the HKBL or by the ICCPR (the applicable provisions of which have, as 

mentioned above, been reproduced in the Hong Kong Bill of Rights) which 

is given effect by article 39 of the HKBL. The courts have interpreted article 

39 to mean that the relevant provisions of the ICCPR as incorporated into the 

Hong Kong Bill of Rights have the same constitutional force as the HKBL 

itself, thus overriding laws that are inconsistent with these provisions.

Another part of Hong Kong’s pre-existing laws that continue as part of the 

laws of the HKSAR is the administrative law based on English common law, 

including the standard of substantive review of administrative action known 

as ‘Wednesbury unreasonableness’, which limits judicial intervention to cases 

where the impugned administrative action is ‘so unreasonable that no reason-

able authority could ever have come to it’.

31

 Although the Wednesbury stand-

ard of review still prevails in English and Hong Kong administrative law, it is 

noteworthy that ‘proportionality’ has been mooted as a possible future devel-

opment of this branch of the law.

32

29 

(1999) 2 HKCFAR 442. The court judgments in the cases discussed in this chapter are all 

available at the website of the Hong Kong Judiciary, 

http://legalref.judiciary.gov.hk

.

30 

(2005) 8 HKCFAR 229.

31 

Per Lord Greene MR in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v. Wednesbury Corporation 

[1948] 1 KB 223 (EWCA), 230. The Wednesbury test has been subject to judicial reformulation 

and calibration over the course of time; see Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the 

Civil Service [1985] AC 374 (HL), 410–11 (per Lord Diplock); R v. Secretary of State for the 

Home Department; ex p Bugdaycay [1987] AC 514 (HL), 531 (per Lord Bridge of Harwich); R 

v. Ministry of Defence ex p Smith [1996] QB 517 (EWCA), 554 (per Sir Thomas Bingham MR); 

R v. Chief Constable of Sussex; ex p International Trade’s Ferry Ltd [1999] 2 AC 418 (HL), 452E 

(per Lord Cooke of Thorndon); R (Mahmood) v. Secretary of State for the Home Department 

[2001] 1 WLR 840 (EWCA), [16]–[19] (per Laws LJ); Kennedy v. Charity Commission [2015] 

1 AC 455 (UKSC), [54]–[55] (per Lord Mance). For recent Hong Kong cases discussing and 

applying the Wednesbury test, see Pagtama v. Director of Immigration (HCAL 13, 45, 56/2014, 

12 January 2016) (CFI); and BI v. Director of Immigration [2016] 2 HKLRD 520 (CA).

32 

Per Lord Diplock in Council of Civil Service Unions v. Minister for the Civil Service. This pos-

sible development has come closer; see Pham v. Secretary of State for the Home Department  

---

242