Baggage-gate Case Now 'academic' After Rule Change

The Airport Authority has told the High Court that a judicial review mounted over the "baggage-gate" scandal two years ago is now nothing more than an academic discussion, as requirements for baggage checks were changed recently "to save the court time and money".

A flight attendant brought the legal challenge after carry-on luggage that one of former Chief Executive CY Leung's daughters had forgotten to take through security was delivered to her at the gate, meaning she wasn't with the bag when it was screened.

The attendant argues that the incident in March 2016 was a breach of airport rules, even though officials at the time insisted nothing untoward had happened.

The counsel representing the authority, Benjamin Yu, told the court on Wednesday that in any case, the stipulation that "all screening of cabin baggage needs to be conducted in the presence of the passenger" was removed from the Aviation Security Programme in April this year.

Yu said a clause now states that passengers only need to be present during any secondary screening process.

In response, the flight attendant's barrister Gladys Li said if the world was told that passengers leaving Hong Kong International Airport do not need to be screened together with their luggage, it would create a massive security loophole that terrorists could exploit.

She said even if that particular security clause has been deleted, there are other stipulations in the Aviation Security Programme that suggest that passengers must be present during the primary screening of their carry-on luggage.

Li said one such clause was that "an airport manager must ensure that the passenger and his cabin baggage are screened ... within an enhanced security area."

During the one-day hearing, the authority's counsel also told the court that the incident involving the former CE's daughter, Leung Chung-yan, did not compromise security because her luggage went through the necessary screening.

He said the case was not an exception and nobody would have paid any attention had it not been for the identity of the passenger in question.

Judge Anderson Chow said he would hand down a ruling at a later date.