Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Immigration ordinance s32(4)(b)

  • 17 Nov 1993

    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. DAO THI SEC

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. DAO THI SEC
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP3314/1993

    Given the continued prospect that the respondents will give evidence in the near future and the reasons for earlier orders still apply, the court extended the detention of the respondents only until 26 November 1993 while allowing the Attorney General liberty to apply on 24 November for further detention provided updated evidence is filed and served in accordance with directions; a short extension balances prosecutorial needs and the respondents' right to challenge detention and to argue alternatives.

  • 27 Oct 1993

    ATTORNEY GENERAL V TRIRU VAN THUC AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL V TRIRU VAN THUC AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP3386/1993

    Balancing the strong public interest in ensuring a major criminal trial proceeds with availability of relevant evidence against the respondents' liberty interests, the judge found there was a realistic prospect that the respondents would give evidence within a reasonable period (assumed by judge to be by end of December) and that a limited 21‑day detention order from 8 October 1993 was a lawful and proportionate exercise of discretion under s32(4)(b).

  • 27 Oct 1993

    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. DO VAN TIEM

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. DO VAN TIEM
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP3375/1993

    The court exercised its discretion to order detention under s32(4)(b) for a limited period (not exceeding 21 days from 8 October 1993) because the public interest in securing the availability of material witnesses for a major criminal trial and the realistic prospect that they would give evidence within the next 12 weeks outweighed the respondents' interest in immediate repatriation; detention must be limited to a reasonable period necessary to achieve that purpose.

  • 27 Oct 1993

    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. DAO THI SEC

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. DAO THI SEC
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP3314/1993

    The judge exercised his discretion to order detention under section 32(4)(b) for a period not exceeding 21 days from 8 October 1993 because, on the assumed facts, there was a reasonable prospect the respondents would be called and give evidence within a reasonable time and the public interest in ensuring a major criminal trial proceeds outweighed the respondents' personal liberty and repatriation interests; detention was limited and subject to fresh consideration thereafter.

  • 7 Oct 1993

    ATTORNEY GENERAL V TRIRU VAN THUC AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL V TRIRU VAN THUC AND ANOTHER
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP3386/1993

    The court exercised its discretion to grant detention orders under s32(4)(b) for the 20 named respondents for a period not exceeding 21 days from 8 October 1993 because the prospect that they would be able to give material evidence within a reasonable time (within approximately 12 weeks) and the compelling public interest in ensuring the proper administration of justice outweighed the respondents' liberty interests, subject to the requirement detention be limited to what is reasonably necessary.