Skip to main content
Social Media
  • twitter
  • linkedin
Home
  • About the project
    • About the project
    • Partnerships and Collaborators
    • Coordination Unit
    • Project Management Team
    • International Network of Judges and Legal Scholars
    • Research assistants
  • Case Law Database
    • Case index
    • Database charts
  • News
    • News and announcements
    • Press newsroom
  • Resources
    • Working papers and other resources
    • Media kit
  • Contacts
Back to the previous page

Hong Kong, Court of First Instance, 8 May 2020, Syed Agha Raza Shah v The Director of Health [2020]HKCFI 770

Case overview

Share
  • linkedin
  • twitter
  • facebook
  • envelope
  • print
Country
Hong Kong (PRC)
Case ID
Syed Agha Raza Shah v The Director of Health [2020]HKCFI 770
Decision date
8 May 2020
Deciding body (English)
Court of First Instance
Type of body
Court
Type of Court (material scope)
Civil Court
Type of jurisdiction
Single jurisdiction system
Type of Court (territorial scope)
State Court
Instance
1st Instance
Area
Freedom of movement of people
Outcome of the decision
Claim inadmissible or rejected
Link to the full text of the decision
Decision_EN available on legalref.judiciary.hk

Case analisys

General Summary

The Applicant was a Hong Kong resident who returned from Qatar / Pakistan and was subject to a quarantine order imposed under the Compulsory Quarantine of Persons Arriving at Hong Kong from Foreign Places Regulation (Cap 599E) (“CQPR”).

The Applicant, a Pakistani national, argued that he was not given a choice of place for his quarantine, unlike other passengers that returned from different regions. He alleged that this constituted discrimination based on his “national origin or race” (at [8]). The application was dismissed as the impugned measure satisfied the 4-step proportionality test.

Facts of the case

The Applicant was a Pakistani and a permanent resident of Hong Kong who returned from Pakistan to Hong Kong. Upon arrival at Hong Kong International Airport, the Applicant was issued a notice containing a compulsory quarantine order under the CQPR, which required him to be subjected to a 14-day mandatory quarantine at a designated quarantine centre (at [2] and [4]).

The Applicant requested to be released from the quarantine centre and to be allowed to quarantine at another more comfortable place such as home or a hotel. He argued that he was not given a choice of the place for his quarantine, but (i) passengers of other nationalities travelling on the same flight were not required to be quarantined at the quarantine centre, and (ii) other Hong Kong residents arriving from the UK or USA (or other countries having higher numbers of confirmed COVID-19 cases or transmissions than Pakistan) were not required to undergo quarantine at the quarantine centre; Instead, they were permitted to quarantine at home or a hotel. The Applicant argued that this constituted discrimination based purely on national origin or race rather than public health reasons, contrary to the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (“HKBORO”) (at [5]).

Type of measure challenged
City government measure
Measures, actions, remedies claimed
Writ of habeas corpus (release from quarantine centre)
Individual / collective enforcement
Individual action brought by one or more individuals or legal persons exclusively in their own interest.
Nature of the parties
  • Claimant(s)
    Private individual
  • Defendant(s)
    Public
Type of procedure
Expedited procedures
Reasoning of the deciding body

First, the HKCFI pointed out that the Applicant’s complaint of discrimination on the ground of national origin or race was based on the incorrect premise that he is required to undergo quarantine at the Centre because of his national origin or race:

“In imposing the quarantine requirement complained of by the Applicant, the nationality or race of the person is not a relevant factor or consideration by the Department of Health.” (at [8])

Although the HKCFI accepted that the Applicant’s right to liberty was restricted by the quarantine measure, it held that it was a lawful exercise of power for satisfying the 4-step proportionality test.

Conclusions of the deciding body

The Applicant’s application was dismissed.

Balancing Fundamental Rights and Fundamental Freedoms

Fundamental Right(s) involved
Right to liberty
Fundamental Right(s) instruments (constitutional provisions, international conventions and treaties)
Right to liberty, Art 6, HKBORO
Rights and freedoms specifically identified as (possibly) conflicting with the right to health
Health v right to liberty
General principle applied
Proportionality
Balancing techniques and principles (proportionality, reasonableness, others)

The proportionality test was applied to determine the validity of the measure imposed on the Applicant (i.e. requiring him to be quarantined at the Centre). The measure satisfies the 4-step test for the following reasons (at [9]):

  1. The impugned measure served the legitimate aim of protection of public health.
     
  2. The impugned measure was rationally connected with the advancement of that aim. 
     
  3. Proportionality: The appropriate standard of review is that of “manifestly without reasonable foundation” instead of the more stringent standard of “no more than reasonably necessary”, because:
    (i) the Department of Health is in a much better position than the court to determine the risk of an outbreak of COVID-19 in Hong Kong and how best such risk may be contained or managed; and

    (ii) of the serious social and economic consequences of a general outbreak of COVID-19 in Hong Kong. Even if the standard of review should be the higher one of “no more than reasonably necessary”, the impugned measure would pass that test. It is obvious that quarantining at home was not equally effective for the purpose of minimising transmission of COVID-19 in the community because those living with the person subject to quarantine at home would almost inevitably be coming into close personal contact with that person on a daily basis but they are not themselves subject to any quarantine restriction.
     
  4. The impugned measure strikes a reasonable balance between (i) the societal benefits of the encroachment (namely, the protection of public health in Hong Kong) and (ii) the restriction of the Applicant’s liberty.

Additional notes

Other notes

On the type of court: Courts in Hong Kong SAR only have territorial jurisdiction over the region.

Additional resources
Link_EN to www.elegislation.gov.hk
Link_EN to www.elegislation.gov.hk
Authors of the case note
  • Song Yihang, Student Researcher, National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law
  • Hoang Thi Khanh Hien, Student Researcher, National University of Singapore, Faculty of Law
Published by Marco Nicolò on 20 January 2022

More cases from Hong Kong (PRC)

  • Hong Kong, Court of First Instance, 30 March 2022, No. HKCFI 688
    Area: Freedom of movement of goods and capital
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of movement of people, goods and capital; Right to private and family life; Other (Right to human dignity; Right to unrestricted access to adequate food)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Hong Kong, Court of First Instance, 12 October 2020, Haider Ali v Social Welfare Department [2020] HKCFI 2611
    Area: Use of protection devices
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Hong Kong, Court of Final Appeal, 21 December 2020, Kwok Wing Hang and Ors v Chief Executive in Council (No. 6)
    Area: Use of protection devices
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of association, Public gathering, Assembly; Freedom of expression; Right to privacy
    Outcome: Claim partially upheld
  • Hong Kong, Court of First Instance, 20 May 2020, [2020] HKCFI 903
    Area: Freedom of movement of people
    Fundamentals rights involved: Other (Right to liberty and security; Right not to be subjected to arbitrary detention)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Hong Kong, High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region, 12 October 2020, HCAL 2007/2020
    Area: Immigration and asylum
    Fundamentals rights involved: Other (A general right to circulate in a public place without having to wear masks)
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Hong Kong, High Court of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Court of 1st Instance, 8 May 2020, Syed Agha Raza Shah c. the Director of Health HCMP
    Area: Non-discrimination
    Fundamentals rights involved: Freedom of movement of people, goods and capital
    Outcome: Claim inadmissible or rejected
  • Load 1 more
List all available cases from Hong Kong (PRC)

Breadcrumb

  1. Home
  2. Case Index
  3. Hong Kong, Court of First Instance, 8 May 2020, Syed Agha Raza Shah v The Director of Health [2020]HKCFI 770
home

This project and its database have been made possible with the financial support from the World Health Organization

www.covid19litigation.org is run and maintained by the University of Trento
Via Calepina 14, I-38122 Trento (Italy) — P. Iva/C.F. IT-00340520220

Social Media Links

  • twitter
  • linkedin

Terms of use

www.covid19litigation.org
Site purpose

This site is for informational use only. Case law summaries are not legal advices and may not be relied on as such. Anyone seeking for legal advice should obtain appropriate legal counsel.

Site operation

This site may not be fully up-to-date (for example, cases may be reviewed, reversed, or appealed). This site may be taken down at any time without notice. The case law summaries provided on this site may be incomplete or outdated.

Copyright

Any files provided on this site were taken from a source that is, to the University of Trento and its Partners' best knowledge, from a freely available public resource, however, any further use of such files is at the user’s responsibility.

Responsibility

This site is maintained by the University of Trento, with financial support from the World Health Organization (WHO). The University of Trento will not be responsible for any use of the site.

No endorsement

Inclusion of a case on the website does not necessarily involve a view, position, or endorsement by the University of Trento or the WHO, including with respect to any legal matter. The site is not a product of WHO and does not necessarily reflect the views or positions of the WHO.

User account menu

  • Log in

Footer menu

  • Contacts
  • Terms of use
  • Privacy
  • Cookies