Read Fateh Muhammad v Commissioner of Registration [2001] 2 HKLRD 659 which can be found in the westlaw HK website of our library database in which there is a summary of what the court said (as for how to find court cases from the websites, see course materials topic 1).
Article 24(4) of the Basic Law defines the permanent residents of the Hong Kong SAR to include ‘Persons not of Chinese nationality who have entered Hong Kong with valid travel documents, have ordinarily resided in Hong Kong for a continuous period of not less than seven years and have taken Hong Kong as their place of permanent residence before or after the establishment of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.'
In this case, the Court of Final Appeal held that generally being in prison due to conviction for a crime did not constitute ordinary residence within article 24(4) of the Basic Law. In addition, the seven continuous year had to be ‘immediately before' the application for permanent residence.
Answer, in your own words, the following questions: -
1. Explain how the Court of Final Appeal arrived at the above conclusion.
2. The Court of Final Appeal mentioned, at pp.665-666, that a purposive approach had to be adopted in understanding article 24(4) of the Basic Law. What does it mean by the purposive approach of interpretation of a constitutional document? Read Ng Ka Ling v Director of Immigration (No 2) [1999] 1 HKLRD 315 (pp.339-340 only) in answering this question.
3. The Court of Final Appeal mentioned, at p.663, a de minimis principle in counting the period of ordinary residence. What does it mean by the de minimis principle? Read Prem Singh v Director of Immigration [2003] 1 HKLRD 550 (paras.67-76 only) in answering this question.