High Court again refuses injunction over mask ban
The High Court on Sunday rejected an application by pro-democracy lawmakers for an interim injunction against the mask ban imposed by Chief Executive Carrie Lam using emergency powers.
But the court will decide later this month whether to allow a judicial review into the CE's move, and any hearing could come at the same time.
The 24 pro-democracy lawmakers had argued that the ban was unconstitutional because Lam had bypassed the legislature to bring it in.
They issued a statement after the hearing, describing the way the High Court had handled the matter as "extremely rare".
They said the planned combined judicial review application bid and hearing shows the court agrees with their questioning of the constitutional basis for the government invoking the Emergency Regulations Ordinance.
They urged the government to enforce the anti-mask law with great restraint, before any court decision.
The lawmakers noted that some people have already been arrested for allegedly violating the new law and said if the government still treasures Hong Kong's rule of law, it should stop enforcing a mask ban which might be overturned.
They also expressed concern that the government might make use of the emergency powers again to introduce other new laws to strip citizens of their rights and freedom.
Sunday's was the second case over the mask ban in as many days, with the High Court also rejecting a bid for an urgent injunction on Friday night.
Anyone who violates the ban on wearing masks at any kind of protest, authorised or otherwise, risks a prison term of one year and a fine of up to HK$25,000.
Aside from protests, the police can also order people to remove face masks, with those refusing liable to six months in prison or a HK$10,000 fine.
The 24 pro-democracy lawmakers had argued that the ban was unconstitutional because Lam had bypassed the legislature to bring it in.
They issued a statement after the hearing, describing the way the High Court had handled the matter as "extremely rare".
They said the planned combined judicial review application bid and hearing shows the court agrees with their questioning of the constitutional basis for the government invoking the Emergency Regulations Ordinance.
They urged the government to enforce the anti-mask law with great restraint, before any court decision.
The lawmakers noted that some people have already been arrested for allegedly violating the new law and said if the government still treasures Hong Kong's rule of law, it should stop enforcing a mask ban which might be overturned.
They also expressed concern that the government might make use of the emergency powers again to introduce other new laws to strip citizens of their rights and freedom.
Sunday's was the second case over the mask ban in as many days, with the High Court also rejecting a bid for an urgent injunction on Friday night.
Anyone who violates the ban on wearing masks at any kind of protest, authorised or otherwise, risks a prison term of one year and a fine of up to HK$25,000.
Aside from protests, the police can also order people to remove face masks, with those refusing liable to six months in prison or a HK$10,000 fine.
AI Disclaimer: An advanced artificial intelligence (AI) system generated the content of this page on its own. This innovative technology conducts extensive research from a variety of reliable sources, performs rigorous fact-checking and verification, cleans up and balances biased or manipulated content, and presents a minimal factual summary that is just enough yet essential for you to function as an informed and educated citizen. Please keep in mind, however, that this system is an evolving technology, and as a result, the article may contain accidental inaccuracies or errors. We urge you to help us improve our site by reporting any inaccuracies you find using the "Contact Us" link at the bottom of this page. Your helpful feedback helps us improve our system and deliver more precise content. When you find an article of interest here, please look for the full and extensive coverage of this topic in traditional news sources, as they are written by professional journalists that we try to support, not replace. We appreciate your understanding and assistance.
