Local Falun Gong joins legal battle in review over ban
The Court of Appeal yesterday paved the way for the Hong Kong chapter of Falun Gong to join a judicial review examining a decision to bar overseas members from entering the city for a religious conference.
Mr Justice Anthony Rogers and Mrs Justice Doreen Le Pichon granted leave to the chairman of the Hong Kong Association of Falun Dafa, as well as the association, to join legal proceedings initiated by four Taiwanese practitioners.
Theresa Chu Woan-chyi, Liao Hsiao-lan, Lu Lih-ching and Chang Jenn-yen, were granted leave on April 29 last year to conduct a judicial review into the director of immigration's decision to detain them at the airport on February 22.
They had been invited to attend a conference hosted by the Hong Kong chapter, with three of the four scheduled to speak at the meeting.
They were among 82 overseas Falun Gong practitioners who were refused entry into Hong Kong, with some members complaining of poor treatment at the hands of immigration officers.
Paul Harris, counsel representing Kan Hung-cheung, of the Falun Gong in Hong Kong, told the Court of Appeal that Madam Justice Carlye Chu Fun-ling had been wrong to find that Mr Kan did not suffer when the Taiwanese members were barred and should therefore be excluded from the review.
He said she was wrong to conclude the conference was able to go ahead despite exclusion of the 82 members and that the organisers were not dealt a significant blow.
'Every conference organiser who has someone refused is a cause of concern,' he said.
Mr Harris said Madam Justice Chu was again wrong to say there was a gap between the decision of the director and the rights of Mr Kan under Article 141 of the Basic Law, which protects religious organisations and religious believers.
'Religious organisations and believers in the HKSAR may mean the development of their relationship with organisations elsewhere,' he said.
'There has been no case so far that interprets that paragraph. 'Maintaining and developing relations is meeting and not just correspondence by phone and e-mail.'
Mr Justice Rogers and Mrs Justice Le Pichon will hand down reasons for their decision at a later date.
