【27/7 英國時間 17:00 更新】胡志偉的律師團隊收到有關方面確認，胡志偉可以旅客身份，與其他持BNO護照入境英國的香港人一樣，在英國逗留六個月。

【最新消息｜英國時間15:00】 夏博義接受《綠豆》專訪後，收到英國邊防回覆指會重新審視（revisiting the case）胡志偉的個案。英國內政部也向《綠豆》表示，正設法解決有關情況，發言人又重申英國政府繼續堅定支持在英港人社群，一貫不會就個別個案作出評論。

在民主派初選案因「顛覆國家政權」罪被判囚四年五個月，至今年6月30日刑滿出獄的前民主黨主席兼立法會議員胡志偉，上周三以旅客身份抵達英國希思路機場，原定探望分離多年、已抵英國的家人，卻遭英國邊防人員一度拒絕入境，後來獲發七天的臨時入境許可。《綠豆》專訪胡志偉代表大狀夏博義（Paul Harris），揭開事件緣由，以及案件對英國 BN(O) 簽證政策的影響。

夏博義表示，胡志偉被拒入境，是因為他在接受邊境人員查問時坦率表示，考慮日後透過 BN(O) 簽證途徑申請留英。他認為，英國內政部在事件中犯下「兩大錯誤」：一方面錯誤判斷胡志偉有意逾期逗留；另一方面錯誤理解英國移民規則，因為現行政策容許合資格 BN(O)護照持有人在以旅客身份，在身處英國期間，直接申請 BN(O) 簽證，因此「考慮提出申請」本身並不應成為拒絕入境的理由。

訪問中，夏博義亦解釋胡志偉目前獲「臨時准許入境」（Temporary Admission），得以短暫與家人團聚，但他的護照被沒收，仍須按當局要求在星期三報到並離境。他透露，已去信英國內政大臣要求重新審視個案，而後續跟進方案之一包括司法覆核，但最終決定仍須由胡志偉本人作出。

夏博義亦質疑，現行 BN(O) 簽證制度未能充分保障曾因政治案件服長期監禁刑期的香港民主派人士，包括「民主派47人案」的「良心政治犯」。他指出，相關人士因《港區國安法》被判監，但有關罪名及定罪基礎並不符合英國法治原則，若制度因此將政治良心犯排除於 BN(O) 計劃之外，有違英國設立 BN(O) 路徑保護香港人的原意。他呼籲英國政府檢討現行政策，修訂移民規則，或在特殊個案中運用酌情權，確保最需要保護的人士不會被制度拒諸門外。

#胡志偉 #夏博義 #paulharris #BNO #內政部 #綠豆

【Update】Following Green Bean Media's interview with Wu Chi-wai’s barrister Paul Harris, Harris told us that the UK Border Force had confirmed it is "revisiting the case". The Home Office also told Green Bean Media that it is working to resolve the situation. A Home Office spokesperson added, "The Government remains steadfast in its support for members of the Hong Kong community in the UK. We do not routinely comment on individual cases."

Former Democratic Party chairman and Legislative Council member Wu Chi-wai, who was released from prison on 30 June after serving four years and five months for "conspiracy to commit subversion" in Hong Kong's democrats' primary election case, arrived at Heathrow Airport last Wednesday as a visitor to reunite with family members now living in the UK after years of separation. He was initially refused entry by Border Force officers before later being granted seven days' temporary admission.

In an interview with Green Bean Media, Wu's barrister Paul Harris explains why Wu was initially refused entry and discusses the implications of the case for the UK's BN(O) visa policy.

According to Harris, Wu was refused entry after candidly telling Border Force officers during questioning that he had considered applying for the BN(O) visa route in the future. Harris argues that the Home Office made two fundamental errors. First, officials concluded that Wu intended to remain in the UK beyond the period permitted as a visitor. Second, they misapplied the Immigration Rules. Harris notes that current Home Office guidance allows eligible BN(O) status holders visiting the UK to apply for the BN(O) visa from within the UK. In his view, merely indicating a consideration to make such an application should not have been treated as a reason to refuse entry.

Harris also explained that Wu has been granted temporary admission, allowing him to spend a short period with his family in the UK. However, his passport has been confiscated by the authorities, and he is required to report to Border Force on Wednesday, 29 July, and leave the UK. Harris said he had written to the Home Secretary asking for the decision to be reconsidered. One possible next step is an application for judicial review, although the final decision on how to proceed rests with Wu himself.

More broadly, Harris questions whether the current BN(O) visa scheme adequately protects Hong Kong democracy activists who have served lengthy prison sentences for politically motivated prosecutions. He argues that many people, including those convicted in the Hong Kong 47 case, have been imprisoned under the National Security Law for conduct that would not constitute a criminal offence under UK law. If such convictions effectively prevent political prisoners of conscience from benefiting from the BN(O) route, he argues, that would be inconsistent with the purpose for which the scheme was introduced - to provide protection for Hong Kong people. Harris calls on the UK Government to review the policy, amend the Immigration Rules where necessary, or exercise discretion in appropriate cases to ensure that those most in need of protection are not excluded from the scheme.