- 13 -
that it was by the common law approach that the Court was to deal with the construction of the NSL: Director of Immigration v Chong Fung Yuen[1]; and HKSAR v Lui Sai Yu[2].
17. The general common law approach on statutory interpretation was summarised in the recent case of HKSAR v Chan Chun Kit[3]. In particular, it was held in HKSAR v Lai Chee Ying[4] that the NSL should be construed in light of its ordinary meaning, purpose and context. In so doing, regard could be made to the Explanations[5] and Decisions[6] made in proceedings of the National People’s Congress (“NPC”) and the National People’s Congress Standing Committee (“NPCSC”) regarding promulgation of the NSL as a law of the HKSAR, as extrinsic materials relevant to the consideration of the context and purpose of the NSL.
18. Applying the above to the present case, we noted first the primary purpose of the NSL was to safeguard national security. NSL 1 stated as follows:
“Article 1 This Law is enacted, in accordance with the Constitution of the People’s Republic of China, the Basic Law of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region of the People’s Republic of China, and the Decision of the National People’s Congress on Establishing and Improving the Legal System and Enforcement Mechanisms for Safeguarding
- ↑ (2001) 4 HKCFAR 211
- ↑ FACC 7/2023, (2023)26 HKCFAR 332, at [45]
- ↑ (2022) 25 HKCFAR 191, citation omitted
- ↑ [2021] HKCFA 3, (2021) 24 HKCFAR 33
- ↑ The Explanation on “the Draft Decision of the National People’s Congress on Establishing and Improving the Legal System and Enforcement Mechanisms for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to Safeguard National Security”, presented by Mr Weng Chen, Vice Chairman of the NPCSC, addressing the Third Section of the Thirteenth NPC on 22 May 2020.
- ↑ The Decision of the National People’s Congress on Establishing and Improving the Legal System and Enforcement Mechanisms for the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region to Safeguard National Security on 28 May 2020.
