10 Mar 2026
The appeal is dismissed because the applicant failed to identify any viable ground to reverse the Judge's dismissal of the leave application; there was no demonstrated error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality in the Judge's reasoning, and on the facts the Board found no state involvement and no real risk of harm.
26 Sept 2023
The applicant's unequivocal withdrawal left nothing outstanding in the action and, following the Court of Appeal's decision in Re Manik Md Mahamudun Nabi [2022] HKCA 471 §19, the correct dispositional order is dismissal of the leave application.
26 Jul 2019
The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was dismissed because the grounds advanced were not reasonably arguable: no oral hearing was sought, the applicant failed to comply with directions to lodge skeleton submissions, and the bare assertion of personal risk on return was insufficient; there was no basis to grant leave under section 22(1)(b).
27 Oct 2010
The Court held that the deterrent sentence established in So Man-king (15 months' imprisonment after plea) is the appropriate starting point for offences under section 38AA(1)(a) and (b) of the Immigration Ordinance; that consistency with s38(1) and the legislative purpose justified applying the same guideline; that humanitarian assistance and the procedural framework for claims do not displace the need for deterrent sentencing; and that adjustments remain permissible for mitigation and aggravation (including credit for custody), but the individual appeals before the Court were dismissed and…
27 Oct 2010
The Court held that the 15-month deterrent starting point established in So Man-king applies to offences under section 38AA(1)(a) and (b) of the Immigration Ordinance; consistency with s.38(1) and the legislative purpose of s.38AA require the same approach, subject to ordinary adjustments (guilty plea, humanitarian considerations, previous offending) and statutory credit for pre-sentence detention.
2 Mar 2009
The court held the prosecutions were outside the published prosecution Policy but that alone did not constitute an abuse of process warranting a stay; however a recognizance given under s.36 of the Immigration Ordinance, in the factual context where the Director made a conscious decision to permit claimants to remain pending determination of asylum/torture claims, constitutes authority to remain for the purposes of s.38(1)(b) and therefore provides an arguable defence; consequent decisions of the magistrate were quashed and the matters remitted for reconsideration in accordance with these fin…