Man under post-jail supervision order files legal challenge after being blocked from leaving city to study abroad
To Kai-wa on Wednesday filed an application for a judicial review at the High Court against the Correctional Services Department's (CSD) decision, which blocked him from leaving Hong Kong during his post-release supervision, according to local media reports.
Judicial reviews are considered by the Court of First Instance and examine the decision-making processes of administrative bodies. Issues under review must be shown to affect the wider public interest.
To, who was jailed for five and a half years in 2021 for biting off part of a police officer's finger during a protest, was released from prison on October 25, 2024. But he remained under the CSD's supervision order, which is effective until August 26, 2026.
He applied in January this year to the CSD's Supervision Case Review Committee to leave for the UK after receiving a conditional offer to study law at the University of Birmingham.
But the committee rejected To's application in April and later rejected his appeal. According to To's court filing, the CSD's committee said To did not 'demonstrate sincere remorse and reflection' and had not undergone 'full rehabilitation and deradicalisation.'
The committee also said that since To holds a British National (Overseas) (BNO) passport, he could apply for British citizenship during his studies there and abscond from the supervision of Hong Kong authorities.
The committee said the British government had interviewed a person who was wanted for endangering national security and breaching a supervision order, an apparent reference to pro-independence activist Tony Chung, who fled to the UK in December 2023 while he was under post-release supervision.
Chung, formerly the convenor of the now-disbanded pro-independence group, was sentenced to three years and seven months in jail in 2021 after pleading guilty to inciting subversion and money laundering. He is among 19 overseas activists wanted by Hong Kong police for alleged national security offences.
The committee said it believed that the British authorities would not extradite To back to Hong Kong in the case of him breaching his supervision order. It said To could remain in Hong Kong to study instead of going abroad.
In his court filing, To's lawyers said the committee's decision had excessively restricted To's freedom of movement protected under the law.
They argued that studying law abroad would improve To's understanding of the rule of law, and therefore would contribute towards the protection of national security and his rehabilitation.
To was not admitted into law programmes in the Chinese University of Hong Kong and the University of Hong Kong, whereas the City University of Hong Kong had yet to inform him of his application results, his lawyers said.
That means To may not be able to study law if he has to stay in Hong Kong, they added.
The lawyers also argued that To's BNO status and the case of a breach of supervision order by another person were irrelevant considerations for the CSD in To's case.
They asked the court to handle the application before August 22 so that To could confirm his enrolment at the university before September 4.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
HKFP
9 hours ago
- HKFP
UK to ‘never allow' political extradition of Hongkongers after alarm over law changes
The UK security minister has said the country would 'never' allow Hongkongers to be extradited for political reasons, after activists raised alarm that changes to an extradition act could put them at risk. Dan Jarvis, the UK's security chief, said on Wednesday that there had been 'inaccurate' reporting on modifications being made to the country's extradition laws. Last month, he said the UK was planning to remove Hong Kong from the UK's Extradition Act 2003, as it no longer had a formal extradition arrangement with the city after the UK scrapped the treaty in response to Beijing imposing a national security law in Hong Kong in 2020. In place of that, the UK would cooperate with Hong Kong on 'the case-by-case ad hoc basis available for non-treaty partners,' Jarvis added. In response, UK-based advocacy group Hong Kong Watch said the proposal could give rise to 'opaque extradition cooperation outside the protections of a formal treaty-based system.' Conservative Party lawmaker Alicia Kearns wrote a letter to Jarvis expressing concern about the 'transnational repression' faced by Hong Kong democracy activists and questioning how the UK could protect them from Hong Kong authorities. In response, Jarvis said on Wednesday that the change – removing Hong Kong from the UK's Extradition Act 2003 – simply 'formalises the severing of ties between the British and Hong Kong extradition systems.' 'The government will never allow a situation where [Hongkongers] or any other nationality is extradited for politically motivated purposes, he said, adding that UK courts have 'extensive powers' and could bar extradition if it is determined that a request is political. Arrest warrants Since Beijing imposed a national security law in Hong Kong following the 2019 protests and unrest, scores of activists have relocated to other countries – with the UK being one of the most popular destinations. Hong Kong police have issued arrest warrants and bounties of up to HK$1 million for 19 overseas activists accused of breaching the national security law. Some of them are now based in the UK, including activists Nathan Law, Finn Lau, and Chloe Cheung. Last week, police issued a new round of warrants for 15 activists, plus a HK$200,000 bounty each for information that could lead to their arrests. Police cited their involvement in a political group deemed subversive by Hong Kong authorities. Jarvis said the UK government 'stands resolutely' with Hongkongers who have relocated to the UK, and that he was 'deeply concerned by the news of further bounties having been issued.' 'Any attempt by any foreign state to intimidate, harass or harm individuals in the UK will not be tolerated,' he said. In June 2020, Beijing inserted national security legislation directly into Hong Kong's mini-constitution – bypassing the local legislature – following a year of pro-democracy protests and unrest. It criminalised subversion, secession, collusion with foreign forces and terrorist acts, which were broadly defined to include disruption to transport and other infrastructure. The move gave police sweeping new powers, alarming democrats, civil society groups and trade partners, as such laws have been used broadly to silence and punish dissidents in China. However, the authorities say it has restored stability and peace to the city.
AllAfrica
9 hours ago
- AllAfrica
Trump's new trade order is here. Will it work?
The beginning of August marks the latest deadline for US President Donald Trump's 'Liberation Day' tariff policy. This era of chaos and uncertainty began on April 2, and the situation remains fluid. With the deadline for partners to secure a deal with Washington now passed, it's a good time to take a broader view and consider if Trump's trade gamble is paying off. The objectives of the tariff policy include raising tax revenues, delivering lower prices for American consumers, and boosting American industry while creating manufacturing jobs. The president has also vowed to get better trade deals for the US to reduce its trade deficit and to face down China's growing influence on the world stage. But recently the US Federal Reserve voted to keep interest rates unchanged at 4.25% to 4.5%, despite pressure from Trump to lower them. In his monthly press briefing, Federal Reserve chair, Jerome Powell, said they were still in the early stages of understanding how the tariff policy would affect inflation, jobs and economic growth. On tariffs, Powell did say that revenues had increased substantially to US$30 billion a month. However, only a small portion of the tariffs are being absorbed by overseas exporters, with most of the cost being borne by US import companies. In comments that will concern the Trump administration, the Fed said the cost of the tariffs was beginning to show up in consumer prices. The Fed expects inflation to increase to 3% by the end of the year, above its 2% target. US unemployment remains low, with Powell saying the economy is at or very close to full employment. While Powell's decision to hold interest rates probably irritated Trump, economic theory suggests that lowering them with the US economic cycle at full employment would be likely to increase inflation and the cost of living for US consumers. A survey by Bloomberg economists suggests that US GDP growth forecasts are lower since April 2025, specifically because of its tariff policy. In terms of boosting US employment, the US administration can point to significant wins in the pharmaceutical sector. In July, British-Swedish drugmaker AstraZeneca announced plans to spend $50 billion expanding its US research and manufacturing facilities by 2030. The announcement follows a similar pledge from Swiss pharmaceuticals firm Roche in April to invest $50 billion in the US over the next five years. The impact of tariffs on traditional US manufacturing industries is less positive. The Ford Motor Company has warned that its profits will see a sharp drop. This is largely down to a net tariff impact that the firm says will cost it $2 billion this financial year. This is despite the company making nearly all of its vehicles in the US. Firms such as Ford are seeing an increase in tariff-related costs for imports. This dents their profits as well as dividends to shareholders. In recent weeks and months, the US has announced major new trade agreements, including with the UK, Japan, South Korea and the EU. Talks on a trade deal with China continue. But rather than trade deals, these announcements should be thought of as frameworks for trade deals. No legally binding documents have been signed to date. It will take many months before a clear picture emerges of how these bilateral deals will affect the US trade deficit overall. Meanwhile, in Washington, a federal appeals court will hear a case from two companies that are suing Trump over the use of his International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) of 1977. VOS Selections Inc, a wine and spirits importer, and Plastic Services and Products, a pipe and fittings company, are arguing that the president has 'no authority to issue across-the-board worldwide tariffs without congressional approval.' With so much in play, it is difficult to judge whether Trump's tariff policy can be viewed as a success. Higher tariff revenues from imports, as well as significant investments from the pharmaceutical industry, can be seen as clear wins. But increasing consumer costs through rising inflation, as well as tariff costs hurting US manufacturers, are clear negatives. While several framework trade deals have been announced, the real devil will, of course, be in the details. Perhaps the greatest impact of the tariff policy has been the uncertainty of this new approach to trade and diplomacy. The Trump administration views trade as a zero-sum game. If one side is winning, the other side must be losing. This view of international trade harks back to mercantilism, an economic system that predates capitalism. Adam Smith and David Riccardo, the founders of capitalist theory, advocated for free trade. They argued that if countries focused on what they were good at making, then both sides could benefit – a so-called positive-sum game. This approach has dominated global trade since the post-war period. Since then, the US has become the largest and wealthiest economy in the world. By creating the institutions of global trade (the IMF, World Bank and World Trade Organization), the US has advanced its interests – and American-based multinationals dominate, especially in areas such as technology. But China and others now threaten this US domination, and Trump is tearing up the economic rulebook. But economic theory clearly positions tariffs as the wrong policy path for the US to assert and further its economic interests in the medium to long term. That's why Trump's course of action remains such a gamble. Conor O'Kane is senior lecturer in economics, Bournemouth University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
HKFP
17 hours ago
- HKFP
Unsolicited free delivery of state-run China Daily copies to UK Parliament halted after review, says MP
Britain's House of Commons has halted the delivery of the state-run China Daily to members, following a review, parliamentarian Alicia Kearns said on Tuesday. 'It was completely wrong for this Chinese Communist Party attempt to exert influence over British politics to be inadvertently funded by British taxpayers,' Kearns said in a tweet. She accused Beijing of attempting to create a 'false narrative on the many human rights atrocities they have committed and the immense security threat they present.' Unsolicited free delivery of the newspaper to UK parliamentary representatives' offices had been ongoing for nine years, the Daily Mail reported. In a response to the Conservative party representative's enquiry, the Administration Committee chair, Nick Smith, said that a review had now 'limited the distribution of bulk mailings to letters and reports only with a size and weight restriction.' House members must opt in to receive mailings such as the China Daily, he said, adding that – as of yet – no members voluntarily subscribe. HKFP has contacted China Daily for comment. It follows a similar move in the US House of Representatives earlier this year. Republican Congressman Abraham Hamadeh successfully passed a resolution in March to prevent the unsolicited delivery of China Daily through the House mail systems. He said that 'there are no circumstances under which the halls of Congress should ever become the domain of foreign propaganda.'
