T v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

T v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Bail was refused because the Director's view that the applicant's non‑refoulement claim could be decided within a reasonable time, reinforced by the scheduled and prioritised TCAB hearing, provided a sufficient basis to justify continued detention; the applicant did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the substantive judicial review or sufficient risk of delay to warrant bail that would effectively grant the relief sought in the JR.

Citation
T v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Parties
Applicant: T; Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 January 2017
Case Number
HCAL241/2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Bail Application Pending Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Outcome
Application for bail refused.
Legal Topics
Bail, Detention, Non‑refoulement, Unified Screening Mechanism, Judicial Review, Leave to Apply
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Bail Detention Non‑refoulement Unified Screening Mechanism Judicial Review Leave to Apply

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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

T

Applicant

Director of Immigration

Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Bail Application Pending Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether bail should be granted pending an application for leave to apply for judicial review
  2. 2 Whether continued detention under the Immigration Ordinance is justified pending determination of non‑refoulement claims
  3. 3 Whether the applicant demonstrated a likelihood of success on the substantive judicial review given that bail would afford substantial part of the relief sought

Ratio Decidendi

Bail was refused because the Director's view that the applicant's non‑refoulement claim could be decided within a reasonable time, reinforced by the scheduled and prioritised TCAB hearing, provided a sufficient basis to justify continued detention; the applicant did not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the substantive judicial review or sufficient risk of delay to warrant bail that would effectively grant the relief sought in the JR.

Court Disposition

Application for bail refused.

Orders

  • Applicant's application for bail is refused.