3 Dec 2013
The magistrate correctly applied the Court of Appeal sentencing guideline (15 months tariff), properly allowed 9 days credit for immigration administrative detention, and there is no legal basis to credit unrelated remand time; accordingly the sentence of 14 months and 21 days imprisonment was lawful and the appeal is dismissed.
19 Jul 2012
Detention from 23 March 2012 was lawful because it was authorised by section 32(3A) of the Immigration Ordinance, the Director took prompt steps to procure removal and removal within a reasonable time was realistic; the applicant's failure to provide requested information justified assessment on available material; therefore the applicant was not wrongfully deprived of liberty and habeas corpus relief was not available.
29 Feb 2012
The master lawfully exercised the discretionary power to refuse waiver of court fees under the High Court Fees Rules and High Court Ordinance, a judge cannot override that administrative decision; on the merits the applicant failed to establish any arguable basis for judicial review (no plausible torture claim, no detention, and no demonstrated unlawfulness or irrationality in the Director's requirement to comply with GEP before employment), therefore leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
13 Oct 2011
Section 11 HKBORO, reflecting the immigration reservation under Article 39 Basic Law, excepted the application of the HKBOR to immigration legislation governing entry, stay and departure; accordingly claimant could not rely on Art.5 HKBOR or Arts.28/35 Basic Law to challenge detention under section 32 IO and the claim failed. The court nevertheless observed that absent that reservation detention under section 32(2A) would be susceptible to invalidity for lack of certain and accessible grounds.
19 Aug 2011
Leave for judicial review was refused because the Director provided an undertaking to withhold execution of the deportation order until 13 September to facilitate mediation, removing the applicant's asserted need to remain; and the court held that, as a matter of principle, the mere existence of pending civil litigation does not suffice to require suspension absent evidence that physical presence is necessary.
15 Oct 2008
The Director’s posted and served documents did not constitute a sufficiently certain and complete policy about when the s32 detention power would be exercised; because the required policy was deficient Article 5(1) was infringed and the applicant is currently unlawfully detained. Although post‑hoc remedial steps can cure defects in principle, the particular materials provided here were legally inadequate to validate detention.