Leung Chun-ying posted on Facebook several hours after the ruling, insisting the authority had always allowed courtesy delivery when handling left-behind luggage.

Hong Kong’s airport authority changed baggage rule after CY Leung security row

“So when the airline crew handed over the luggage to Chung-yan, it was the usual practice rather than a prerogative,” he wrote.

But Chow’s judgment rejected Leung’s argument, saying there was no information on such courtesy deliveries, and the authority had refused to deliver the bag to Leung Chung-yan in the first place.

Late offer from CY’s daughter to bring clarity on luggage saga fails to cut ice

Leung also told Chinese-language media on Thursday that the judicial review was a “political act rather than a safety issue”, but did not elaborate.

Hong Kong Cabin Crew Federation spokeswoman Carol Ng Man-yee said her group – an umbrella organisation that includes Law’s flight attendants’ union – was “very pleased” with the court ruling and demanded the Airport Authority and Civil Aviation Department apologise for going against their safety-first principle in the 2016 incident.

“What would I tell Leung Chun-ying and his wife? I’d tell everyone the same thing: it’s everyone’s obligation to follow the rules,” Ng said outside court.

The court was previously told that Leung Chung-yan realised she had left behind a bag at the check-in counter after she had gone through security to board a Cathay Pacific flight on March 27, 2016.

The authority declined to take the bag through because it considered it the airline’s responsibility, while AVESCO said it had no objection to the airline taking the bag.

Eventually, a Cathay Pacific staff member took the bag through X-ray security screening in Leung’s absence and delivered the bag to her at a boarding gate in the early hours of March 28.

At the time, the HKASP stated: “All screening of cabin baggage shall be conducted in the presence of the passenger.”

Law, a member of the executive council of the Hong Kong Dragon Airlines Flight Attendants Association, applied for the judicial review in June 2016. She said she was concerned about whether a flight attendant should be allowed or required to take unattended baggage through security screening.

Cathay Pacific plane hits pole at Rome airport, crushing right wing

The authority had argued in court that the review was “academic”, because the secretary for security amended the HKASP in 2018.

Chow accepted that the presence of the passenger at the primary screening of cabin baggage was no longer required under the new version of the relevant regulations. But he found the court still had the jurisdiction to hear and determine the question at issue, as he noted the amendment was brought in specifically because of Leung Chung-yan’s case.

“The injustice of dismissing the application for judicial review without consideration of its substantive merits simply because the secretary for security has exercised the power to amend the relevant regulations after the event would be stark,” Chow wrote.

When interpreting the original HKASP, the judge said the court should favour a construction of it that best promoted aviation security, and enhanced the smooth and efficient operation of the screening process.

He concluded it was clear that the presence of the passenger was required at the X-ray security screening of a cabin bag, given the HKASP’s objective was “to protect the safety, regularity and efficiency of international civil aviation in Hong Kong”.

And he further pointed out that the presence of the passenger would facilitate the smooth and efficient operation of the screening, since officers could then immediately conduct a secondary screening, while passengers could address queries relating to any suspicious items found, saving the trouble of having to find the passenger concerned.

Protest at Hong Kong International Airport over left luggage saga

Ng called for reinstatement of the old security rules, citing safety reasons.

A legislator backed that call, and asked the Security Bureau to explain who had made the decision to amend the HKASP. During the hearing, a bureau official told the court in writing that the amendments were made “to save costs and time for the court and the parties”.

The Civic Party’s Jeremy Tam Man-ho said: “Someone has breached the rule, but the authority amended the rule so it’s no longer a breach.

‘I hate abuse of privilege’: CY Leung criticised over daughter’s left luggage saga

“It’s a shame that the authority changed the ASP just for this family. We will demand the authority switch back to its previous version.”

The Security Bureau would not comment on who pushed for the amendment, which came 14 months after the judicial review was filed.

The Airport Authority said it respected the court’s decision and would study it in detail, but stopped short of saying whether it would appeal, given that the rules had already been amended.