MAK YUI MING AND OTHERS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

MAK YUI MING AND OTHERS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL

The Director of Immigration had not exercised his statutory discretion under section 13 in respect of the applicants; the televised announcement and the registration forms did not constitute authorization to remain nor did they give rise to an estoppel preventing removal; accordingly the removal orders and detention were lawful and the habeas corpus writ and judicial review relief were refused.

Citation
MAK YUI MING AND OTHERS v. ATTORNEY GENERAL
Parties
Plaintiff/applicant: MAK YUI MING; Plaintiff/applicant: MAK SIU FONG; Plaintiff/applicant: MAK CHIU YING; Next Friend and Aunt: CHAN YUN TAI; Defendant/respondent: THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 December 1980
Case Number
HCMP1052/1980
Procedural Posture
Habeas Corpus and Judicial Review of Removal Orders Under Immigration Ordinance / Full Bench Judgment on Leave to Apply for Judicial Review and Habeas Corpus (judgment Dated 18 December 1980)
Outcome
Writ of habeas corpus quashed; leave to apply for certiorari/judicial review refused; removal orders and detention held lawful
Legal Topics
Removal Orders, Detention Pending Removal, Statutory Discretion (s13), Estoppel Against the Crown/statutory Authority, Registration of Persons, Habeas Corpus, Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Immigration Administrative Law Public Law Criminal Procedure (detention) Removal Orders Detention Pending Removal Statutory Discretion (s13) Estoppel Against the Crown/statutory Authority +3 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

MAK YUI MING

Plaintiff/applicant

MAK SIU FONG

Plaintiff/applicant

MAK CHIU YING

Plaintiff/applicant

CHAN YUN TAI

Next Friend and Aunt

THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Defendant/respondent

Procedural Posture

Habeas Corpus and Judicial Review of Removal Orders Under Immigration Ordinance / Full Bench Judgment on Leave to Apply for Judicial Review and Habeas Corpus (judgment Dated 18 December 1980)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether televised announcement and registration procedure constituted statutory authorization under section 13 of the Immigration Ordinance to remain in Hong Kong
  2. 2 Whether estoppel can prevent enforcement of removal orders or defeat a statutory discretion
  3. 3 Whether forms issued by the Registration of Persons Office or completion of arrival/registration formalities amounted to authorization to remain

Ratio Decidendi

The Director of Immigration had not exercised his statutory discretion under section 13 in respect of the applicants; the televised announcement and the registration forms did not constitute authorization to remain nor did they give rise to an estoppel preventing removal; accordingly the removal orders and detention were lawful and the habeas corpus writ and judicial review relief were refused.

Court Disposition

Writ of habeas corpus quashed; leave to apply for certiorari/judicial review refused; removal orders and detention held lawful

Orders

  • Application for certiorari/judicial review refused