Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Medical treatment in detention

Legal area

Court

31 Oct 2025

FERNANDO LOPEZ LOPEZ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5220
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2136/2025

The detention is lawful and reasonable: the deportation order is valid; the Secretary and Director have acted with reasonable diligence to obtain travel documents and effect removal; the applicant's prolonged detention is attributable to his own unreasonable refusal to cooperate and delayed pursuit of NRC, and there is a real risk of absconding and re-offending, so the detention did not become unlawful and the habeas corpus application is dismissed.
27 Aug 2025

GURUNG GOVINDA v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3920
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1516/2025

The detention of the applicant for 224 days was lawful and reasonable: the Director intended to deport and acted with reasonable diligence to obtain travel documentation and effect removal; delays were directly or indirectly caused by the applicant's persistent refusal to cooperate with re-entry/travel-document formalities and such detainee-caused periods are not to be treated as rendering detention unreasonable; ongoing appellate or non-refoulement proceedings did not constitute a legal impediment to removal under prevailing policy; therefore habeas corpus application dismissed.
11 Aug 2025

SHOMAN ABU ZAFOR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3580
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1113/2025

The detention remained lawful because there was prima facie authority to detain, the Director/Secretary acted with diligence to effect removal, the principal cause of delay was the applicant's own refusal to cooperate with reentry formalities (self-induced delay which the case law excludes from counting as unreasonable), and risks of absconding and reoffending justified continued detention under s32(4A) of the Immigration Ordinance; medical issues and a guarantor did not outweigh those factors.
24 Dec 2024

AMARJIT v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3672
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1854/2024

Detention remained lawful because the Director acted with diligence to procure removal, the primary delays were attributable to the applicant (late challenges and persistent refusal to cooperate with reentry formalities), the applicant's serious criminal history and risk of absconding posed a public safety concern, medical needs were being met in detention, and under s32(4A) and binding authorities (Harjang Singh; Johnson Benjamin) the period of detention of 320 days was reasonable in all the circumstances.
2 Dec 2024

SUKHPAL SINGH v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 3448
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1686/2024

Detention remains lawful because removal is practicable and the principal cause of delay is the applicant's deliberate refusal to cooperate with reentry formalities; self‑induced delay should not be treated as rendering a previously lawful detention unlawful, and medical and other circumstances do not outweigh justification for continued detention.
24 Oct 2024

JOSHI MULAME KARAM SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 2716
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1311/2024

Detention was lawful and remained lawful because the respondent acted diligently to effect removal, the primary practical impediment to removal was the applicant's persistent refusal to cooperate with re-entry formalities, medical needs were being met, and there were real risks of absconding and re-offending; under s32(4A) and relevant authorities the period of detention was reasonable in all the circumstances.
23 Apr 2024

ALI NAZAKAT v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND OTHERS

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1133
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL436/2024

The detention was lawful and continued to be lawful: the Director intended removal (HS1), the period to date (approximately 180 days) remained reasonable in all the circumstances and the outstanding JR did not render removal impossible (HS2/HS3), and the Director acted with reasonable diligence to effect removal (HS4). The habeas corpus application was dismissed because the JR was imminently listed, the Applicant had been uncooperative with removal formalities creating a real risk of abscondence, and there was no evidence that medical treatment in custody was inadequate.
23 Aug 2023

ADJAGBA ROBERT v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2196
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1324/2023

Detention under section 32(3A) remained lawful because the Director acted diligently and expeditiously to procure travel documents and arrange removal, the applicant substantially contributed to delay by refusing to cooperate and by frustrating repatriation operations, repatriation was imminent, and therefore the detention had not become unreasonably long or unlawful.
9 Nov 2012

MBOGGA NASSER v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT AND ANOTHER

Citation

MBOGGA NASSER v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL142/2012

The detention was lawful because it was authorised under section 32(3A) of the Immigration Ordinance (Cap.115), the Director rationally concluded removal could be effected within a reasonable time, the existence of a pending UNHCR refugee claim does not by itself make detention unlawful in Hong Kong, and the applicant's medical complaints did not establish illegality of custody; accordingly habeas corpus was refused.