B: How to show law must be make public? Why?

C: Law needs to have certain degree of stability. In what situation it can be changed? Find Example.

D: What is principle of "non-retrospectivity?"

--> summary: How does it reflect the significance of rule of law?

B: What is statutory law?

C: How does basic law reflect Hong Kong has "one country, two systems"?

D: Which law states that we should abide the law? Who are 'we'?

--> summary: How does it reflect the significance of rule of law?

B: Find an example to show the judiciary is not subject to interference from executive authorities or the legislature.

C: Find an example that reflects guaranteeing the power of the judiciary

D: Find an example that reflects how judicial independent prevent government abuse of power?

--> summary: How does it reflect the significance of rule of law?

B: Find an example to show judges and judicial personnel must make judgements based on law and facts.

C: Find an example to show how does judicial independence guaranteeing the judges shall not be dismissed easily?

D: How does it judicial independence reflect the significance of rule of law?

B: Who can request judicial review?

C: In what situation can someone request judicial review?

D: Find one example of judicial review?

--> summary: How does it reflect the significance of rule of law?

--> summary: How does it reflect the significance of rule of law?

--> summary: How does it reflect the significance of rule of law?

--> summary: How does it reflect the significance of rule of law?

. Judicial review focuses on the lawfulness of the decision-making process, not on whether the outcome itself was "correct" or "fair".

Purpose:

The purpose of judicial review is to ensure that public bodies act lawfully and fairly, by allowing courts to scrutinize the decision-making process of government departments, lower courts, and other administrative bodies.

"sufficient interest” in the matter they are challenging.

Associated Provincial Picture Houses v Wednesbury Corporation[1948] 1 KB 223. This established the "Wednesbury unreasonableness" test, which states that a decision is unlawful if it is "so unreasonable that no reasonable authority could ever have come to it". The threshold for this test is high, and courts will not interfere simply because they disagree with a decision or believe there were better options available. 

cornerstone and a prerequisite of the rule of lawbecause it ensures that justice is administered impartially, based solely on law and evidence, without external pressure or influence.

-Impartial and Fair Adjudication

-Protection of Rights and Freedoms

-Checks and Balances

-Public Confidence

-Predictability and Consistency

In essence, judicial independence provides the necessary framework for the abstract principles of the rule of law to be applied in a practical, meaningful, and consistent way in a free society.

beyond its legal powers.

It reflects the significance of rule of law by making sure that public bodies are acting within it’s own legal limits.

The Court of Final Appel, ruled in favor of the applicants, affirming their right to reside in Hong Kong. This turning point decision was seen as a significant declaration of judicial independence and the rule of law.

Court decisions are based on the relevant legal principals me the facts of the individual cases

An example is R v Dudley and Stephens ,4 sailors shipwrecked and after many days on a life boat two sailors killed the weakest and youngest members . after coming back to land they were prosecuted for murder . The judges found it hard because they had to eat to survive but after thinking about the law principal , they were found guilty of murder

It is written law that is passed by a legislative body, such as Congress or a state legislature, and enacted by the executive branch

Differences to common law:

Common law is created through created through court decisions.

Statutory law is the result of a formal legislative process that starts with a bill.

Steps:

A bill is proposed

Debated

Voted on by the legislature

If passed it is sent to the chief executive

If signed it becomes a statute

Subani: from the Community Legal Information Centre, the Principle of Natural Justice emphasizes that decision-makers must act fairly toward individuals whose rights and interests are affected by their decisions. This principle ensures that those impacted have the opportunity to present their case without bias. Fairness standards can change based on the specific context of each decision, reflecting evolving societal values. For instance, the case Regina v Secretary for State for the Home Department highlighted that there is a presumption that administrative powers will be exercised fairly.

Bidi: It also pointed out that fairness isn't a one-size-fits-all concept; it must consider the relevant laws and circumstances surrounding a decision. Additionally, individuals should have the chance to make representations before or after a decision is made, and they need to be informed of the key issues at stake in order to respond effectively. This principle is crucial for maintaining transparency, accountability, and justice in administrative processes.

• Example: The principle asserts that any decision-maker must provide those affected with a chance to state their case. This requirement acts as a safeguard against arbitrary decision-making, which is essential for a fair legal system.

2. Protection of Rights

• Example: The right to be informed of the gist of the case enables individuals to understand any actions taken against them. This transparency helps protect their rights, ensuring that they can make informed representations.

3. Dynamic Standards of Fairness

• Example: The source mentions that standards of fairness may change over time, depending on the context of decisions. This adaptability ensures that the legal system remains responsive to societal values, thus reinforcing public trust in the rule of law.

4. Reinforcement of Legal Frameworks

• Example: According to the House of Lords case Regina v Secretary for State for the Home Department, ex parte Doody, fairness demands that decision-makers consider the statutory context of their powers. This grounding in law ensures that decisions are legitimate and legally sound.

This reinforces the rule of law by ensuring fairness in how decisions are made, not just what decisions are made.

The case involved the legality of certain actions taken by the police during a protest. The Court of Final Appeal ruled for Ng Kung Siu, stating that the judiciary must interpret the law independently, without any influence from political groups. This decision showed the importance of the rule of law and judicial independence in Hong Kong.

The basic law reflect "one country, 2 systems" from stating Hong Kong is an inalienable part of China, this also proves our unity and China's sovereignty.

Hong Kong also has a high degree of autonomy (stated from the basic law's article 2) which means there are 2 systems, as Hong Kong is granted the executive, legislative, and independent judicial powers, including the power of final adjudication.

The enforcement of removal orders reflects the rule of law, ensuring accountability, judicial authority, and the protection of community standards.

For example, in the legal cases related to the social unrest in Hong Kong, the courts have rigorously adhered to legal protocols to guarantee that all cases are examined impartially and equitably, without any outside influence.

This judicial review underscored that public bodies must exercise discretion reasonably and within the purpose of the law, reinforcing that the rule of law requires both substantive and procedural fairness in administrative decisions.

In specific cases related to government guidance at the start of the COVID-19 pandemic, the court found that certain government decisions were irrational because they failed to consider highly relevant information. 

The irrationality centered on the UK government's policy in March and April 2020 of discharging patients from hospitals into care homes without requiring negative COVID-19 tests, and without taking into account the risk of asymptomatic transmission. 

—Failure to consider a relevant matter: The court found that the government and those drafting the guidance "simply failed to take into account the highly relevant consideration of the risk to elderly and vulnerable residents from asymptomatic transmission".

Subani: from the Community Legal Information Centre, the Principle of Natural Justice emphasizes that decision-makers must act fairly toward individuals whose rights and interests are affected by their decisions. This principle ensures that those impacted have the opportunity to present their case without bias. Fairness standards can change based on the specific context of each decision, reflecting evolving societal values. For instance, the case Regina v Secretary for State for the Home Department highlighted that there is a presumption that administrative powers will be exercised fairly.

Bidi: It also pointed out that fairness isn't a one-size-fits-all concept; it must consider the relevant laws and circumstances surrounding a decision. Additionally, individuals should have the chance to make representations before or after a decision is made, and they need to be informed of the key issues at stake in order to respond effectively. This principle is crucial for maintaining transparency, accountability, and justice in administrative processes.