Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Risk of absconding

Legal area

Court

28 Aug 2025

DO VAN BINH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3890
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1501/2025

The detention was lawful and remains reasonable because the Director and Secretary acted diligently to effect removal, a travel document was issued and a repatriation flight arranged, and material risks of absconding and (re)offending justified continued detention; the applicant’s limited cooperation and conduct did not render detention unlawful.
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.
18 Aug 2025

PHAM THI THOM v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3669
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1385/2025

The detention remained lawful because it was instituted for the legitimate purpose of effecting removal, the Director acted with diligence, the applicant's substantial and unjustified delay in pursuing her non-refoulement challenge substantially caused and continues to cause the period of detention, and there is a real risk of absconding and (re)offending; therefore the period (134 days) was reasonable under s.32(4A) and relevant authorities.
6 Aug 2025

DEWEY ALICE SITO v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3522
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1486/2025

The court dismissed the habeas corpus application and held detention lawful: the Director intended deportation and acted with reasonable diligence to obtain a travel document, the applicant's persistent refusal to cooperate caused the delay in removal and therefore the detention period remained reasonable under s.32(4A) and applicable case law, and the real risk of absconding justified continued detention; medical and safety complaints did not outweigh these factors.
31 Jul 2025

HKSAR v. LEUNG KAI LOK

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3407
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCCP539/2025

The court found that, on the evidence and having regard to the applicant's age, clear record, family ties, psychiatric treatment appointment and explicit parental supervision undertakings, there were sufficient grounds under NSL Article 42(2) to believe the applicant would not continue to commit acts endangering national security; having passed that threshold, applying the CPO considerations the court concluded there were no substantial grounds to believe the applicant would abscond, commit further offences or require remand for his protection, and therefore granted bail subject to stringent…
3 Jul 2025

KARTININGSIH v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2892
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1215/2025

Detention held lawful and the habeas corpus application dismissed because the removal order was valid, the Director had acted with reasonable diligence to secure travel documents, the applicant repeatedly refused to cooperate thereby causing or prolonging delay which s.32(4A) allows to be treated as reasonable, and there was a real risk of absconding outweighing the applicant's countervailing factors.
31 Mar 2025

HATTANAGE MOLEEN RAMANI v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1337
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL474/2025

Detention was lawful and not unreasonable because it was authorised by ss.32(3A) and 29(1) IO, the Director intended to deport and acted with reasonable diligence to obtain travel documents and priority for the subsequent NRC, a valid travel document and a scheduled repatriation flight existed, and the applicant's history and stated unwillingness to return created a real risk of absconding such that release was not warranted.
23 Dec 2024

HKSAR v. KWAN HAU CHI, VANESSA

Citation

[2024] HKCA 1194
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC244/2021

The applicant failed to demonstrate highly exceptional circumstances to justify lifting the travel restriction imposed as a condition of bail pending appeal; public policy interests in ensuring attendance and protecting the administration of justice outweigh the applicant's humanitarian and property-related reasons, particularly given available alternatives to manage the London property and the real possibility the applicant may not return due to health.
13 Sept 2024

KO KANG SUK v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2024] HKCA 848
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV132/2024

The Court of Appeal allowed the respondents' appeal, set aside the first-instance order granting habeas corpus and dismissed the Applicant's habeas application because, on reassessment taking into account the applicant-attributable delays (including failure to file promptly and refusal to accept settlement), the high risks of abscondence and re-offending, and a realistic estimate of the time to dispose of any potential leave application, HS2 and HS3 (the Hardial Singh reasonableness requirements) remained satisfied and detention remained lawful and foreseeable.
14 May 2024

HKSAR v. T. K. C.

Citation

[2024] HKCFI 1539
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMA74/2024

The magistrate’s decision was confirmed: the appellant failed to demonstrate that refusal to return his travel document would cause unreasonable hardship when balanced against substantial investigatory interests and a real risk of absconding; the second affirmation and its exhibits were not admitted as credible, and the magistrate’s refusal to return the passport and to allow leaving Hong Kong was upheld; appeal dismissed.