Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Detention of witnesses

Legal area

Court

29 Nov 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. HOANG VAN DIEN

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. HOANG VAN DIEN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3385/1993

Assuming for present purposes that the Director's section 13E(1) orders and the Secretary for Security's section 32(4)(a) authorisations were valid, the judge held that the public interest in ensuring the continuation of a major criminal trial and the demonstrated importance of the respondents' evidence justified making further short successive detention orders under section 32(4)(b) for most respondents; three named respondents were exempted and the jurisdictional and intent challenges were reserved for future hearing where the Director may give evidence.
7 Oct 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL V HOANG VAN DIEN AND ANOTHER

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL V HOANG VAN DIEN AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3385/1993

Given a reasonable prospect that the respondents would be able to give evidence within a limited period (assessed as up to 12 weeks) and the strong public interest in completing a major criminal trial, it was proportionate to order detention under s.32(4)(b) for a further period not exceeding 21 days from 8 October 1993; detention must be limited to what is reasonably necessary and reassessed on further application.
7 Oct 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LUU DINH CAM

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LUU DINH CAM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3377/1993

The court exercised its discretion to order continued detention under Section 32(4)(b) for a limited period (21 days from 8 October 1993) because on the facts there was a realistic prospect that the respondents would be called to give evidence within a reasonable time (assessed as by end of December), and the powerful public interest in ensuring the proper administration of justice and avoiding abortive trial proceedings outweighed the respondents' interest in immediate repatriation and liberty.
7 Oct 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. DO VAN TIEM

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. DO VAN TIEM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3375/1993

Balancing the public interest in ensuring an important criminal trial proceeds with the respondents' liberty interests, and proceeding on the assumption most favourable to respondents that detention should not be ordered if there is no prospect of giving evidence within a reasonable time, the judge found there was a realistic prospect the witnesses would give evidence within 12 weeks and therefore lawfully exercised discretion to order detention for up to 21 days from 8 October 1993 under s32(4)(b).
7 Oct 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LE THI KIM

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LE THI KIM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3372/1993

Balancing the respondents' liberty interests against the compelling public interest in ensuring an important criminal trial proceeds with all relevant evidence available, and given the reasonable prospect the witnesses can give evidence within 12 weeks, the court exercised its discretion to order detention under s32(4)(b) for a limited period (not exceeding 21 days from 8 October 1993).
7 Oct 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. DINH VAN TUAN

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. DINH VAN TUAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3387/1993

The court exercised its discretion to order continued detention of 20 named respondents under Section 32(4)(b) for a period not exceeding 21 days from 8 October 1993 because the public interest in ensuring a major criminal trial proceeds and the reasonable prospect that the witnesses would give evidence within the proposed period outweighed the respondents' private liberty interests; detention must be limited to the period reasonably necessary to achieve that purpose and reviewed afresh thereafter.
7 Oct 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NGO THI NGUNG

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NGO THI NGUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3313/1993

The judge held that the discretionary power under section 32(4)(b) may be exercised to detain non‑accused witnesses for a reasonable and limited period when necessary to secure their attendance at an important criminal trial; on the facts the public interest in the administration of justice and a realistic prospect that the witnesses would give evidence within 12 weeks justified detention for up to 21 days from 8 October 1993.
7 Oct 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TA VAN KHOA

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TA VAN KHOA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3368/1993

The judge balanced the public interest in securing availability of material witnesses for a major criminal trial against individual liberty and repatriation interests, concluded there was a reasonable prospect the witnesses could give evidence within the next 12 weeks, and that a further limited detention was proportionate; accordingly, detention orders under s32(4)(b) were granted for up to 21 days from 8 October 1993 for the 20 respondents.
7 Oct 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NGO THI AN

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NGO THI AN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3379/1993

Where there is a realistic prospect that detained witnesses will be able to give their evidence within a reasonable time, and where the public interest in ensuring a major criminal trial proceeds and that all relevant evidence is available outweighs the private interest in immediate repatriation, the court may exercise its discretion under s.32(4)(b) to order detention for a limited period; applying that test the judge ordered detention of the 20 respondents for up to 21 days from 8 October 1993.
7 Oct 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NGUYEN THI HUE

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NGUYEN THI HUE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3315/1993

The judge exercised discretion under s32(4)(b) and held that the public interest in ensuring the proper administration of justice and availability of material witnesses for a trial of utmost gravity outweighed the respondents' interest in immediate repatriation; given the circumstances and the reasonable prospect that the witnesses would be able to give evidence within the limited period, detention for a further period not exceeding 21 days from 8 October 1993 was lawful and proportionate.