KWOK WING HANG AND 23 OTHERS V. CHIEF EXECUTIVE IN COUNCIL AND ANOTHER (and 3 others)
Counsel (16)
Parties (26)
Case Significance
Kwok Wing Hang and 23 Others v. Chief Executive in Council and Another (and 3 others) [2020] HKCFA 42 is a Court of Final Appeal judgment dated 21 December 2020. Its catchwords engage multiple provisions of the Basic Law, including Art 160(1), Art 2, Art 27 and Art 39, together with the Emergency Regulations Ordinance (s 2) and its s 2(3), and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance. The decision has been cited in subsequent criminal proceedings before the Court of Final Appeal, including HKSAR v. Leung Chung Hang Sixtus (梁頌恆) [2021] HKCFA 24 and HKSAR v. Lai Chee Ying (黎智英) [2021] HKCFA 3, as well as in HKSAR v. Best Pencil (Hong Kong) Limited and Others [2024] HKDC 1430 before the District Court and Re Lamtex Holdings Ltd (in Liquidation) [2025] HKCFI 3627 before the Court of First Instance.
Summary
Twenty-four applicants, including Legislative Council members, challenged the constitutionality of the Prohibition on Face Covering Regulation enacted under the Emergency Regulations Ordinance. The Court of Final Appeal considered whether the ERO was consistent with the Basic Law and whether the face-covering ban was a proportionate restriction on fundamental rights. The Court held the ERO was constitutional but found parts of the face-covering regulation disproportionate.
Which Basic Law provisions are engaged in Kwok Wing Hang and 23 Others v. Chief Executive in Council [2020] HKCFA 42?
The Court of Final Appeal decision engages Basic Law Articles 160(1), 2, 27 and 39, alongside the Emergency Regulations Ordinance and its s 2(3), and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, in a judgment dated 21 December 2020.
How has Kwok Wing Hang and 23 Others v. Chief Executive in Council [2020] HKCFA 42 been cited since?
It has been cited in later Court of Final Appeal decisions including HKSAR v. Leung Chung Hang Sixtus (梁頌恆) [2021] HKCFA 24 and HKSAR v. Lai Chee Ying (黎智英) [2021] HKCFA 3, and in District Court and Court of First Instance judgments.
Statutes Cited
Cases Cited (12)
Citation influence
HKLII records this judgment as cited by 37 later judgments. This counts every later Hong Kong judgment that references this case, which is broader than the resolved citations listed above.
Related cases
Other Hong Kong judgments involving the same parties or counsel.
Judgment
Read the full judgment on the official Hong Kong Courts portal.
Read on HKLIISource: HKLII ([2020] HKCFA 42)