BRIAN ALFRED HALL v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

BRIAN ALFRED HALL v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Habeas corpus leave dismissed as moot because subsequent Court of Appeal increase in sentence meant detention was lawful; leave for judicial review refused in respect of historical disciplinary decisions for lack of reasonable grounds, delay and abuse of process, and absence of an arguable error in standard of proof or bias, but limited leave was granted to challenge disciplinary decisions dated between 27 July 2012 and 14 September 2012 (Ref nos 80–83) on an arguable denial of legal representation and unfairness.

Citation
BRIAN ALFRED HALL v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES
Parties
Applicant / Intending Applicant: Brian Alfred Hall; Putative Respondent (hcmp 1201/2008): Secretary for Justice; Putative Respondent (hcal 161/2012): Commissioner of Correctional Services
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 April 2013
Case Number
HCAL161/2012
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave Under Section 27 a of the High Court Ordinance — Judicial Review and Habeas Corpus by a Vexatious Litigant / Judgment on Application for Leave (decision Handed Down 26 April 2013)
Outcome
Section 27A application partially dismissed and partially allowed: habeas corpus leave dismissed; leave to apply for judicial review refused in respect of most historical disciplinary convictions and grounds (delay, abuse of process, no arguable case) but granted in respect of specific disciplinary decisions in late...
Legal Topics
Vexatious Litigant, Leave to Commence Proceedings Under S27 a, Judicial Review, Habeas Corpus, Prison Disciplinary Proceedings, Remission Forfeiture, Right to Legal Representation, Standard of Proof, Bias, Delay/extension of Time
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Criminal Law Civil Procedure Prison Law Human Rights Vexatious Litigant Leave to Commence Proceedings Under S27 a +8 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 6 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Brian Alfred Hall

Applicant / Intending Applicant

Secretary for Justice

Putative Respondent (hcmp 1201/2008)

Commissioner of Correctional Services

Putative Respondent (hcal 161/2012)

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave Under Section 27 a of the High Court Ordinance — Judicial Review and Habeas Corpus by a Vexatious Litigant / Judgment on Application for Leave (decision Handed Down 26 April 2013)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave under s27A should be granted to a person subject to a vexatious litigant order
  2. 2 Whether habeas corpus relief is available given subsequent increase of sentence
  3. 3 Whether prison disciplinary convictions are challengeable for denial of legal representation

Ratio Decidendi

Habeas corpus leave dismissed as moot because subsequent Court of Appeal increase in sentence meant detention was lawful; leave for judicial review refused in respect of historical disciplinary decisions for lack of reasonable grounds, delay and abuse of process, and absence of an arguable error in standard of proof or bias, but limited leave was granted to challenge disciplinary decisions dated between 27 July 2012 and 14 September 2012 (Ref nos 80–83) on an arguable denial of legal representation and unfairness.

Court Disposition

Section 27A application partially dismissed and partially allowed: habeas corpus leave dismissed; leave to apply for judicial review refused in respect of most historical disciplinary convictions and grounds (delay, abuse of process, no arguable case) but granted in respect of specific disciplinary decisions in late...

Orders

  • Section 27 Application to commence habeas corpus proceedings dismissed
  • Leave under s27A to commence judicial review refused in respect of the bulk of the disciplinary decisions (historical decisions 1999–2011 and others as identified) as time‑barred, abusive or lacking arguable merit