The Hong Kong government has refuted the claims of a South Asian man, who is seeking a judicial review of law enforcers for failing to investigate and protect him against human-trafficking.
A court heard on Tuesday that the man, whose identity and nationality must remain undisclosed for legal reasons, became the victim of human-trafficking and forced labour after being enticed to Hong Kong by his prospective employer.
He had apparently been made to work and live on commercial premises between 2007 and 2010. He returned to Hong Kong illegally in April 2012, 16 months after he had been sent home, to try and retrieve the income he had never received.
A lawyer representing the South Asian man told the court on the second day of the hearing that his client was regularly beaten by his employer and forced to work seven days a week under bad conditions, often without food.
However, the SCMP reports that the government legal representative, British Queen’s Counsel David Pannick, told the High Court yesterday that the South Asian man was not actually a victim of forced labour.
Pannick picked apart the claims, suggesting that the conditions were “neither permanent nor unlikely to change”. He insisted the South Asian man could feasibly leave the office, and had volunteered to do the work that he was asked to do.
The man claims he suffered a continued breach of his rights under Article 4 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, which prohibits forced labour, servitude, slavery and the slave trade in all forms.
His lawyer said the man had not had time to eat whilst working, had never received the HKD4,000 monthly income that he had been promised, had been tricked into partaking in unlawful activities – such as disposing of his employer’s counterfeit goods – and had been blackmailed into staying in Hong Kong.
Allegedly, whenever the South Asian man had tried to leave his job, his employer insisted he would need to reimburse him for the money spent on bringing the worker to Hong Kong.
However, Pannick implied that withholding pay was not within the scope of subjecting an employee to forced labour, slavery or human trafficking.
The hearing continues today.
