Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Deportation/removal orders

Legal area

Court

17 Sept 2025

BAL TAMANG CHANDRA BAHADUR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4375
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1802/2025

Detention was lawful because the RO and DO were valid, the Director and Secretary acted with reasonable diligence to effect removal, the prolonged duration was directly caused by the Applicant's repeated refusal to cooperate with re-entry formalities and by his history of absconding and offending which created a real risk of absconding/re-offending; accordingly HS1–HS4 were satisfied and the habeas corpus application was dismissed.
9 Aug 2023

HARPAL SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2051
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1238/2023

The application was dismissed because the court found HS1 and HS4 satisfied and, on balancing HS2 and HS3 against the roughly 233 days detention, the detention remained reasonable and lawful: the applicant materially contributed to delay by refusing to cooperate in obtaining travel documents, the NRC obstacle was removed, and there was a significant risk of reoffending and absconding warranting continued detention to facilitate removal.
8 Aug 2023

GURINDER SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2023] HKCFI 2049
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1178/2023

Applying the Hardial Singh framework the court found HS1 and HS4 satisfied and that, weighing a detention period of about two months against the imminent judicial review hearing, the Director's active steps to facilitate removal and the applicant's pattern of recidivism, continued detention remained reasonable and lawful; habeas corpus dismissed with no order as to costs.
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.
7 Nov 2012

HKSAR v. MATSUDA KENICHI

Citation

HKSAR v. MATSUDA KENICHI
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC342/2004

A sentencing court must not reduce sentence on the basis of the assumed practical non-availability of early release under the Prisoners (Release Under Supervision) Ordinance to non-resident defendants because eligibility and suitability for release are discretionary and cannot be predicted at sentence; additionally, in Sarkuna the one-year consecutive sentence for the small separate cocaine package was unjustified and must run concurrently, reducing his total sentence to 16 years; Matsuda's application for leave was dismissed.
7 Nov 2012

HKSAR v. SARKUNA

Citation

HKSAR v. SARKUNA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC239/2002

A sentencing judge must not reduce a sentence on the basis that a non-resident is unlikely in practice to obtain discretionary early release under the Prisoners (Release Under Supervision) Ordinance because eligibility and grant are matters of future discretion and speculative at the time of sentencing; additionally, in Sarkuna's case the one-year consecutive sentence for the small cocaine count was unjustified and must run concurrently, reducing the total term to 16 years.

Hong Kong Case Law

BAL TAMANG CHANDRA BAHADUR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

HARPAL SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

GURINDER SINGH v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

MBOGGA NASSER v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT AND ANOTHER

HKSAR v. MATSUDA KENICHI

HKSAR v. SARKUNA