23 Oct 2020
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant did not demonstrate any issue of general or public importance under s22(1)(b), the pleaded grounds did not contest the statutory validity of the s31 detention order, and the allegations against the doctor were factually and legally unsubstantiated and irrelevant to the judicial review before the court.
18 Jul 2008
The Court held the appeals allowed: detention under section 32 following the making of Convention claims was unlawful because the grounds and procedures governing detention for convention claimants were not shown to be sufficiently certain and accessible to satisfy Article 5 of the HKBOR; Hardial Singh constrains the exercise of detention powers but does not substitute for the Article 5 requirement of accessible and reasonably certain domestic rules or policy applicable to convention claimants.
17 Nov 1993
Because there remains a real prospect that the respondents will be required to give evidence in the reasonably near future and no adequate argument on alternatives had been developed, the court extended detention as necessary to secure their availability; the extension is limited in time to allow full argument on alternatives at a subsequent hearing and to ensure proportionality.
30 Dec 1988
The application for immediate and unconditional release was refused because the court found the detention lawful and no improper or unreasonable exercise or failure to exercise powers by the Director of Immigration, and because the Director offered a statutory remedy under s.36(1) to release the applicant on recognisance which made immediate habeas relief inappropriate.