Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Detention law

Legal area

Court

31 Mar 2026

SAEED UR REHMAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1936
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL98/2026

The detention was lawful: the Secretary/Director intended to deport and acted with reasonable diligence; a valid RO/DO and an issued emergency travel document existed; the applicant's protracted delay in pursuing his non-refoulement claim and active refusal to cooperate, coupled with a history of absconding, jumping bail and serious convictions, meant the 138-day detention remained reasonable under the Hardial Singh balancing exercise; accordingly habeas corpus relief was refused.
2 Mar 2026

JOYEL RAJAN v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 1179
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1571/2025

The application for leave was dismissed because there were no reasonably arguable grounds with realistic prospects of success: the statutory threshold under s20(1)(a) was satisfied by an offence punishable with imprisonment of not less than two years; procedural fairness was observed as representations were considered; interpreter needs were not shown to be unmet given the applicant's indicated English proficiency; detention and medical care raised no reasonably arguable public law breaches; and damages claims are more appropriately pursued in private law fora.
6 Feb 2026

RICHARD SWAN v. THE MEDICAL SUPERINTENDENT OF PAMELA YOUDE NETHERSOLE EASTERN HOSPITAL

Citation

[2026] HKCFI 853
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL118/2026

The application was dismissed because the detention and the refusal to discharge were authorised by the Mental Health Ordinance (s.36 and s.42(1)) and the Conditional Discharge Order made under s.42B was lawful and proportionate under Article 28 Basic Law and the Bill of Rights; the court will not reassess the merits of the medical superintendent's clinical judgment and statutory review lies with the Mental Health Review Tribunal under s.59B.
18 Nov 2025

KHUC NGOC HIEP v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5593
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2001/2025

The applicant's detention was and remains lawful because the Director and Secretary pursued removal with diligence, the delay to removal was substantially attributable to the applicant's own legal actions and refusal to cooperate, and objective risks (absconding, potential reoffending) together with lack of local ties justify continued detention of 174 days and foreseeable future.
20 Oct 2025

ABBAS SADAQAT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 5014
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL2071/2025

Detention held lawful and reasonable: Director demonstrated intent and reasonable diligence to effect removal, delay attributable to applicant's persistent refusal to cooperate with travel/document and repatriation arrangements may be excluded when assessing unlawfulness, and the applicant's conviction, absconding history and real risk of absconding or re-offending justify continued detention; habeas corpus dismissed.
3 Oct 2025

SAMSON CLIFARD v. HONG KONG SAR GOVERNMENT

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4737
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1937/2025

Application dismissed because detention under s.32(3) IO remained lawful and reasonable: Director and Secretary demonstrated intent to deport and acted with reasonable diligence to obtain travel documents and effect removal; applicant's repeated refusal to cooperate and his criminal and absconding history created a real risk of absconding/reoffending such that continued detention was necessary and reasonable under Hardial Singh and s.32(4A).
16 Sept 2025

PHAM THI THU PHUONG v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 4305
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1382/2025

Detention was and remains lawful because the Director has acted diligently to effect removal, a valid travel document has been issued, the subsequent claim is a last-minute delay tactic being processed expeditiously, and objective risks of absconding and (re)offending justify continued detention; accordingly 176 days is reasonable under s32(4A) and Hardial Singh principles.
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.
7 Aug 2025

AKRAM MOHAMMAD v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 3534
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1315/2025

Application dismissed because detention under a valid removal order was for the purpose of removal, the Director acted with reasonable diligence and expedition, the applicant's persistent refusal to cooperate with re-entry formalities directly prolonged detention, and there was a real and substantial risk of absconding given past failures to report recognizance; accordingly the 443‑day detention remained reasonable under s.32(4A) and Hardial Singh principles.
30 Jun 2025

WD ON BEHALF OF LNT (A MINOR) v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF HOSPITAL AUTHORITY AND ANOTHER

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 2741
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1460/2025

The detention was unlawful because no statutory provision in the PCJO or elsewhere authorised the Director/SWO to detain LNT or to block his discharge: the CP Order committed the child to the care of the mother (not to the SWO or an institution), supervision does not equate to authority to detain, and the Family Court's interim sole care and control order in favour of the father (served on the hospital) displaced any inconsistent juvenile court measures; accordingly habeas corpus relief was granted and LNT ordered released.