applicant have the necessary standing to initiate the case? Had homosexual men been discriminated against by some provisions within the Crimes Ordinance? Could a piece of law be determined discriminatory but appearing on the face that they have been applied equally? Should the courts let the legislature handle constitutional challenges on primary legislation? Arguments & Reasoning Issue 1: Did the courts in Hong Kong have the jurisdiction to hear ‘academic’ cases? Holding: Yes Argument: The Government argued that the case was academic or hypothetical in its nature because the applicant had not been arrested or prosecuted. It had always been the doctrine of the courts not to hear such cases. Thus, the courts did not have the jurisdiction to hear the applicant's case. (Court of First Instance judgement, paragraph 11; Court of Appeal judgement, paragraph 26 ) Reasoning: The courts in Hong Kong did indeed have the jurisdiction to hear ‘academic’ cases, though the courts would normally dismiss such cases and demand the applicant to show some forms of harms or inabilities as a result of the Government's judgements, decisions, or actions. At the end of the day, the Court has the discretion to determine whether or not hear such cases. The reasons for the courts avoiding hearing academic cases were that it would be very dangerous for courts to make decisions on important legal principles without a full set of facts. 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: 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. In fact, it would be contradictory to the spirit of Article 35(1) of the Basic Law, which states: (Court of First Instance judgement, paragraphs 51-60; Court of Appeal judgement, paragraph 28) Issue 2: Did the applicant have the necessary standing to initiate the case? Holding: Yes Argument: The Government argued that the applicant of the case was not being arrested or prosecuted; thus, he lacked the sufficient interest and standing to bring a case before the court. And even though the applicant would have been considered to have the standing by the Court, the 3-month time limit required by the law for application for judicial review had passed long ago. (Court