Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Detention orders

  • 29 Nov 1993

    ATTORNEY GENERAL V.BUI DINH NGOC AND OTHERS

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL V.BUI DINH NGOC AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP3316/1993

    On the facts before the court and for the purposes of exercising judicial discretion the judge assumed the section13E(1) orders and s32(4)(a) authorisations to be valid, held that the Crown's need for witnesses outweighed the respondents' liberty interests, reserved jurisdictional and factual challenges (including alleged ulterior purpose and Director's intention) for future application where the Director can adduce evidence, ruled that body orders do not amount to detention orders, and that unsealed originating notices were not a fatal procedural defect; accordingly ordered detention under s…

  • 29 Nov 1993

    ATTORNEY GENERAL V. HOANG GIA NGHIA AND OTHERS

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL V. HOANG GIA NGHIA AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP3391/1993

    Assuming valid section 13E(1) removal orders and section 32(4)(a) authorisations, the court may exercise its discretion to grant limited successive detention orders under section 32(4)(b) where the prosecution demonstrates the respondents are necessary witnesses and their continued presence is reasonably necessary for the fair trial; prolonged detention must be reasonably necessary and procedural defects that are purely formal do not defeat the substantive application. The court therefore granted further limited orders for most respondents while leaving jurisdictional challenges to be litigat…

  • 29 Nov 1993

    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NGUYEN THI NGA

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NGUYEN THI NGA
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP3390/1993

    The court, having assumed for the purposes of its discretionary exercise that the statutory preconditions (valid section 13E(1) and section 32(4)(a) authorisations) existed, balanced the strong public interest in securing a long and complex criminal trial against the respondents' private interests and concluded that, except for three respondents, detention under section 32(4)(b) for a limited period was lawful and necessary; the court granted 14-day detention orders while preserving respondents' rights to challenge validity of the underlying executive orders on future application where the Di…

  • 29 Nov 1993

    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NGUYEN KHAC TINH

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NGUYEN KHAC TINH
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP3374/1993

    Assuming for present exercise of discretion that the section 13E(1) orders and section 32(4)(a) authorisations were valid, the court may in the public interest make further detention orders under section 32(4)(b) where the respondents' evidence is sufficiently important and there is a reasonable prospect they will give evidence within a reasonable time; on the evidence before the court the balance favoured detention of all but three respondents, and procedural defects such as unsealed originating motions did not nullify the applications.

  • 17 Nov 1993

    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NGO THI NGUNG

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NGO THI NGUNG
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP3313/1993

    Because there remains a real prospect that the respondents will be required to give evidence in the reasonably near future and no adequate argument on alternatives had been developed, the court extended detention as necessary to secure their availability; the extension is limited in time to allow full argument on alternatives at a subsequent hearing and to ensure proportionality.

  • 17 Nov 1993

    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. BUI THI NGOAN AND OTHERS

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. BUI THI NGOAN AND OTHERS
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP3311/1993

    Given the continued prospect that the respondents will be required to give evidence at trial within a foreseeable period and absent a fully developed argument on practicable alternatives, the court was justified in continuing detention for a limited time; the court exercised its discretion to limit the extension until 26 November 1993 and granted liberty to the Attorney General to apply for further detention with directions to file evidence by a specified date.

  • 17 Nov 1993

    ATTORNEY GENERAL V. PHAM THI XA

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL V. PHAM THI XA
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP3371/1993

    Continued detention of the respondents under section 32(4)(b) is justified because they are required witnesses and there is a realistic prospect they will give evidence in the near future; absent full argument on proposed alternatives, the court will grant a short limited extension and allow the Attorney General liberty to apply for further extensions with required evidence.

  • 17 Nov 1993

    ATTORNEY GENERAL V. PHUNG VAN TOAN

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL V. PHUNG VAN TOAN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP3382/1993

    The court held that the reasons previously given for detention remained valid and that, in the absence of full argument on proposed alternatives, a limited further detention order was justified; the court ordered a short extension until 26 November 1993 and granted the Attorney General liberty to apply for further detention with specified directions for filing and service of evidence to permit proper argument on alternatives to detention.

  • 17 Nov 1993

    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. DAO THI SEC

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. DAO THI SEC
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP3314/1993

    Given the continued prospect that the respondents will give evidence in the near future and the reasons for earlier orders still apply, the court extended the detention of the respondents only until 26 November 1993 while allowing the Attorney General liberty to apply on 24 November for further detention provided updated evidence is filed and served in accordance with directions; a short extension balances prosecutorial needs and the respondents' right to challenge detention and to argue alternatives.

  • 17 Nov 1993

    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NGUYEN THI NGA

    Citation
    ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NGUYEN THI NGA
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMP3390/1993

    Further detention orders for the respondents are justified and should be granted for a limited period because there is a reasonable prospect they will be required to give evidence imminently; where alternatives to detention are alleged, the court will allow a short interim detention and liberty to apply for extension to permit fuller argument and the filing of further evidence.