Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Detention conditions

Legal area

Court

16 Mar 2023

AKRAM MUHAMMAD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 595
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1329/2022

The court held that subsidiary legislation validly enacted under the enabling provisions cannot be invalidated for irrationality alone; TGCI and CIC detainees are not comparable because of a legitimate, evidenced policy to concentrate higher security risk detainees in TGCI; the differences in treatment are rationally connected to legitimate aims and are not disproportionate in context (and some differences were to be addressed legislatively); accordingly there was no reasonably arguable case of unlawful unequal treatment and leave to apply for judicial review was refused.
17 Nov 2022

NAUSHAD MOHAMMED v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2022] HKCFI 3475
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1134/2022

The court found prima facie statutory authority for detention and that, on balance of factors (length of detention 441 days, Director's demonstrated intention and diligence to effect removal, applicant's uncooperative conduct on travel documents, weak merits of pending JR, and significant criminal and absconding history creating real risk of absconding and reoffending), the Hardial Singh criteria were satisfied and continued detention remained lawful; habeas corpus application dismissed.
3 Aug 2018

NAVARRO LUIGI RECASA v. THE COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 1815
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL93/2015

The court held the detention placement in the male Vulnerable Prisoners Unit with protective single-cell and restricted association was lawful and not discriminatory or unconstitutional given the applicant's intact male genitalia and custodial safety duties; strip and cavity searches by male officers conducted under the applicable rules were lawful and proportionate in context and the contested provisions did not require reading down to permit searches exclusively by officers of the applicant's self‑identified gender; the applicant's claims were dismissed.
19 Jul 2016

HKSAR v. SUN YUK LING

Citation

HKSAR v. SUN YUK LING
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCC228/2015

The VRI (VDP6), the Post Record (VDP4) and the mobile phone exhibit (VDP9) are inadmissible because the prosecution failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the statements were voluntary and the exhibit provenance was reliable: the defendant was subjected to oppressive detention and questioning (overnight in an interview room without adequate rest or supervision, questioning in the small hours, uncautioned rehearsal and inducement), and the chain of custody for the mobile phone was fatally defective.
17 Nov 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL V. HOANG GIA NGHIA AND OTHERS

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL V. HOANG GIA NGHIA AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3391/1993

The court extended detention of the 19 respondents until 26 November 1993 because continuation of the earlier reasons for detention remained valid to secure their attendance to give evidence; the extension was limited to allow the proposed alternative argument to be developed and to give the Attorney General an opportunity to apply for further extension with additional evidence.

Hong Kong Case Law

AKRAM MUHAMMAD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

NAUSHAD MOHAMMED v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

NAVARRO LUIGI RECASA v. THE COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. SUN YUK LING

ATTORNEY GENERAL V. HOANG GIA NGHIA AND OTHERS