Facts 1. Human trafficking is a worldwide as well as a Hong Kong problem. Against this context, the Appellant, who is a Pakistani national, was brought to Hong Kong as a foreign domestic helper between 2007 and 2010. During that period, he was badly mistreated by his employer. His movements were restricted to the office and he worked long hours. He was regularly beaten and was not paid any wages. The employer also threatened him with serious harm if he left his employment. In 2010, his employer tricked him into returning to Pakistan. 2. After returning to Hong Kong in 2012, the Appellant made multiple reports about the mistreatment that he had suffered to the Immigration Department, the Police and the Labour Department. A claim for unpaid wages was registered, but there was no investigation of his complaints as a possible case of human trafficking for forced labour. 3. The Appellant applied for judicial review in respect of the Government’s breach of his rights under Article 4 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights (“BOR4”). BOR4 is divided into three separate numbered paragraphs. BOR4(1) states that “no one shall be held in slavery; slavery and the slave-trade in all their forms shall be prohibited.” BOR4(2) states that “no one shall be held in servitude”. BOR4(3)(a) states that “no one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.” 4. The Court of First Instance allowed the application. It held that firstly, implicit in each of the concepts prohibited by BOR4 is a prohibition against trafficking a person for each of slavery, servitude and forced labour respectively. Secondly, the Appellant was a victim of human trafficking for the purpose of forced labour. Thirdly, the Government had positive obligations under BOR4 to enact measures to ensure the prohibition of forced labour, including human trafficking for that purpose. The current legal regime is insufficient and the Government had failed to maintain a criminal offence that prohibits forced labour. 5. The Court of Appeal allowed the Government’s appeal in part, ruling that this is a case of forced labour and that the Government breached its investigative duty under BOR4 in relation to the Appellant’s complaints. However, it held that BOR4 does not cover human trafficking and does not impose positive obligations on the Government to specifically criminalise forced labour. Issue 6. The Appellant appealed to the Court of Final Appeal on two questions of law. First, does BOR4 prohibit human trafficking and, if so, what is the scope of the prohibition? Secondly, does BOR4 impose a positive duty on the Government to maintain a specific offence criminalising the activities prohibited under BOR4? Decision 7. The Court unanimously dismissed the appeal. Reasons 8. On the first question, the Court held that BOR4(1) may, by referring to “slavery and the slave-trade in all their forms”, prohibit human trafficking for the purposes of slavery. However, BOR4(1) does not prohibit human trafficking generally for the purposes of exploitation or for the purposes of servitude and forced or compulsory labour. Furthermore, BOR4(3)(a) does not prohibit human trafficking for forced or compulsory labour. 9. BOR4 is structured to distinguish between three separate and distinct concepts. Since the prohibition against forced or compulsory labour under BOR4(3)(a) is derogable, it is different from the prohibitions against slavery and servitude under BOR4(1) and BOR4(2). Furthermore, BOR4(2) and BOR4(3)(a) prohibit substantive conduct in the form of servitude and forced or compulsory labour, rather than the process of trafficking. To expand the meaning of BOR4 to prohibit human trafficking for exploitation generally would be to ignore the language of BOR4 and impermissibly alter the underlying concepts addressed in BOR4(2) and BOR4(3)(a). 10. On the second question, the Court held that the Government has a wide margin of discretion in the manner in which it complies with its positive obligations under BOR4, subject to the supervision of the courts. There is no absolute duty on the Government to maintain a specific offence criminalising forced or compulsory labour. To comply with its obligations under BOR4, the Government must afford practical and effective protection of rights under BOR4. Whether it has done so will depend on the facts of any given case. 11. In this case, it had not been shown that the breach of the Appellant’s BOR4 rights was caused by the lack of a specific offence criminalising forced or compulsory labour, or that existing offences failed to afford the Appellant sufficient protection. Nonetheless, this judgment did not prevent a different conclusion being reached in a future case.