Judicial review in Hong Kong
Similar to the United States, Hong Kong courts have held that they may review as to whether legislation passed by the legislature is in compliance with the Basic Law.Article 39 of the Basic Law entrenches the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as a core constitutional document for Hong Kong.With the advent of the Bill of Rights, which came into operation on 8 June 1991, the courts of Hong Kong embarked upon an era of meaningful constitutional review.The courts of Hong Kong produced a valuable if not very large body of human rights jurisprudence and gained a useful six years of pre-handover experience of meaningful constitutional review before the Basic Law came into force.The basis of administrative review is sometimes said to be Article 35 of the Basic Law, which reads: Hong Kong residents shall have the right to institute legal proceedings in the courts against the acts of the executive authorities and their personnel.There is, however, debate on this.[5][6][7][8] As explained by the Court of Final Appeal, the requirement to obtain leave to apply for judicial review serves as 'an important filter ... to prevent public authorities from being unduly vexed with unarguable challenges'.[34] On 3 December 2015, Henry Litton, a retired judge who sat on the Court of Final Appeal, caused controversy by his claim that the system of judicial review had been "abused".[35] Shortly afterwards, Winnie Tam, chair of the Bar Association, told the media that not every unsuccessful case of judicial review represented an abuse of the system."Although there may occasionally be inconveniences, judicial review overall serves the public interest and facilitates the well-being of our society," he said in his speech at the Ceremonial Opening of the Legal Year 2016.