Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Writ of habeas corpus

Legal area

Court

14 Apr 2025

PHAM VAN QUYET v. IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 1567
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL591/2025

Detention throughout the 124‑day period was lawful and reasonable because a valid deportation order existed, the Director and Secretary acted with reasonable diligence to secure removal (including obtaining travel documents), the applicant's belated subsequent non‑refoulement claim and uncooperative conduct caused or prolonged detention and cannot be treated as making the detention unreasonable, and there was a real risk of absconding or re‑offending; accordingly the habeas corpus application was dismissed.
14 Feb 2023

賴潤帶 v. 警務處處長蕭澤頤 AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 230
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL17/2023

The application was dismissed because the applicant was not under detention and did not comply with Order 54 rule 1(2)'s requirement for an affidavit/affirmation by the person restrained; therefore the habeas corpus application was misconceived.
27 Aug 1993

THONGCHAI SANGUANDIKUL v. GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and Another

Citation

THONGCHAI SANGUANDIKUL v. GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and Another
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV92/1993

The Court dismissed the appeal: evidence impeaching a witness's credibility post-committal is inadmissible in habeas corpus proceedings unless it goes to the magistrate's jurisdiction; the High Court cannot rehear the magistrate's factual determination; additionally the material was not "fresh" under s23(1), so the committal order was lawful and must be upheld.
22 Jun 1990

ENG SUI HANG, JOHNNY v. GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

Citation

ENG SUI HANG, JOHNNY v. GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3484/1989

Provisional warrant proceedings were separate and did not vest any right, privilege, obligation or liability in the United States or in Hong Kong at the date of repeal; therefore proceedings after repeal should have been conducted under the Extradition Act 1989; the Governor's orders made under the repealed 1870 Act and all subsequent proceedings including the magistrate's warrants of committal were unlawful and a nullity; habeas corpus was granted.
6 Nov 1968

RE LUNG SHING FAN

Citation

RE LUNG SHING FAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP251/1968

The consent judgment for $74,000 entered with the applicant's counsel's agreement bound the applicant; alternatively, even if defective, it remained an order of the Supreme Court and was not ultra vires and therefore valid until set aside; accordingly detention under the fi. fa. was lawful and the habeas corpus application was dismissed.

Hong Kong Case Law

PHAM VAN QUYET v. IMMIGRATION DEPARTMENT

賴潤帶 v. 警務處處長蕭澤頤 AND ANOTHER

THONGCHAI SANGUANDIKUL v. GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and Another

ENG SUI HANG, JOHNNY v. GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

RE LUNG SHING FAN