File Download
There are no files associated with this item.
Supplementary
-
Citations:
- Appears in Collections:
Article: Human Trafficking and Judicial 'Divination' in Hong Kong
Title | Human Trafficking and Judicial 'Divination' in Hong Kong |
---|---|
Authors | |
Issue Date | 2018 |
Publisher | Sweet & Maxwell Asia. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.hku.hk/law/hklj/ |
Citation | Hong Kong Law Journal, 2018, v. 48 pt. 3, p. 807-818 How to Cite? |
Abstract | The Court of Appeal’s (CA) recent ruling in ZN v Secretary for Justice on human trafficking is problematic for three reasons. First, it read too much into the People’s Republic of China’s choice not to apply the Palermo Protocol to Hong Kong. Second, the CA’s striking preference for the United Nations Human Rights Committee’s General Comments over the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence contradicts a long line of the Court of Final Appeal case law. Finally, the CA’s ruling that the errant employer’s abusive conduct towards ZN constituted forced labour, in contravention of art 4(3) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, is extraordinary because s 7 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap 383) (BORO) explicitly provides that the BORO does not apply to conduct between private individuals. While deeming it unnecessary for the Hong Kong legislature to enact a specific law on forced labour, the CA ironically established a new common law offence of forced labour under Hong Kong law. |
Persistent Identifier | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/273384 |
ISSN | 2023 Impact Factor: 0.3 2020 SCImago Journal Rankings: 0.112 |
SSRN |
DC Field | Value | Language |
---|---|---|
dc.contributor.author | Yap, PJ | - |
dc.contributor.author | Lee, HLK | - |
dc.date.accessioned | 2019-08-06T09:27:55Z | - |
dc.date.available | 2019-08-06T09:27:55Z | - |
dc.date.issued | 2018 | - |
dc.identifier.citation | Hong Kong Law Journal, 2018, v. 48 pt. 3, p. 807-818 | - |
dc.identifier.issn | 0378-0600 | - |
dc.identifier.uri | http://hdl.handle.net/10722/273384 | - |
dc.description.abstract | The Court of Appeal’s (CA) recent ruling in ZN v Secretary for Justice on human trafficking is problematic for three reasons. First, it read too much into the People’s Republic of China’s choice not to apply the Palermo Protocol to Hong Kong. Second, the CA’s striking preference for the United Nations Human Rights Committee’s General Comments over the European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence contradicts a long line of the Court of Final Appeal case law. Finally, the CA’s ruling that the errant employer’s abusive conduct towards ZN constituted forced labour, in contravention of art 4(3) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights, is extraordinary because s 7 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap 383) (BORO) explicitly provides that the BORO does not apply to conduct between private individuals. While deeming it unnecessary for the Hong Kong legislature to enact a specific law on forced labour, the CA ironically established a new common law offence of forced labour under Hong Kong law. | - |
dc.language | eng | - |
dc.publisher | Sweet & Maxwell Asia. The Journal's web site is located at http://www.hku.hk/law/hklj/ | - |
dc.relation.ispartof | Hong Kong Law Journal | - |
dc.title | Human Trafficking and Judicial 'Divination' in Hong Kong | - |
dc.type | Article | - |
dc.identifier.email | Yap, PJ: pjyap@hkucc.hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.email | Lee, HLK: lee.kenneth@hku.hk | - |
dc.identifier.authority | Yap, PJ=rp01274 | - |
dc.identifier.hkuros | 300730 | - |
dc.identifier.volume | 48 | - |
dc.identifier.issue | pt. 3 | - |
dc.identifier.spage | 807 | - |
dc.identifier.epage | 818 | - |
dc.publisher.place | Hong Kong | - |
dc.identifier.ssrn | 3444696 | - |
dc.identifier.hkulrp | 2019/060 | - |
dc.identifier.issnl | 0378-0600 | - |