Leung TC William Roy v Secretary for Justice (Chinese: 《梁威廉訴律政司司長》 ) is a leading Hong Kong High Court judicial review case on the equal protection on sexual orientation and the law of standing in Hong Kong.

Particularly, the Court sets up a precedent case prohibiting unjustified differential treatments based upon one's sexual orientation.

In 2004, Mr Leung, the applicant, a 20-year-old gay man, applied for leave for judicial review without being arrested or prosecuted.

In his application, Mr Leung complained that the Crimes Ordinance discriminated against him based upon his sexual orientation and interfered with his private life by forbidding him to give physical expression to other gay men and, thus, making him unable to develop long-lasting relationships.

6) During the proceedings, Mr Leung challenged four provisions in the Crimes Ordinance infringing his constitutional rights to equality and privacy.

Mr Justice Hartmann ruled in favour of the applicant and struck down all four sections of the Crime Ordinance violating the guaranteed legal protections for equality and privacy.

When exceptional cases arose, the courts should carefully exercise the discretion to hear such cases and follow the instructions provided in Section 21K(2) of the High Court Ordinance: An application for a declaration … by way of an application for judicial review, and on such an application the Court … may grant the declaration … if it considers that, having regard to- (a) the nature of the matters in respect of which relief may be granted by orders of mandamus, prohibition or certiorari; (b) the nature of the persons and bodies against whom relief may be granted by such orders; and (c) all the circumstances of the case, it would be just and convenient for the declaration to be made…Moreover, the Court expressed that individuals should never be asked to break the law in order to initiate a legal proceeding for the purpose of protecting their fundamental rights.

If the matter, as in the present case, goes to the fundamental human rights of a class of persons, that, it seems to me, in the interests of public policy, must be material.

(Court of First Instance judgement, paragraph 99) Yes The Government argued that buggery should not be seen or recognised in the same way as sexual intercourse; and thus, the Court should not compare Section 118C, forbidding gay men from engaging buggery under 21, with the law forbidding heterosexual couples having sex under 16.

Furthermore, the Court explicitly stated that sex was not only for procreation but also for expressing love and intimacy; buggery, for gay men, fit well into those definitions.

If there would be a clear infringement of rights based upon race, sex, or sexual orientation, the courts shall scrutinise the proposed justification with intensity.

Following the margin of appreciation doctrine, the courts should also always bear in mind of their roles to protect minorities from the excesses of the majority.