Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Right to liberty

Legal area

Court

24 Jun 2025

MA CHUN MAN v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

Citation

[2025] HKCA 585
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACV4/2025

The applicant's BOR 5(1) was not engaged because his detention is pursuant to a lawful sentence and the statutory referral mechanism (ss6(3) read with 6(3A)) does not deprive him of liberty; s6(3A) and the SNSO definition of national security satisfy the 'established by law' requirement; the Commissioner's process afforded a reasonable opportunity to make representations and legitimate expectation did not affect the national security assessment; appeal dismissed.
18 Jul 2014

HKSAR v. LEUNG KA KIT

Citation

HKSAR v. LEUNG KA KIT
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP1731/2014

Bail must be granted because the magistrate withdrew previously granted bail without giving any reasons and there was no prosecution objection; the arbitrary remand was an abuse of judicial power and the defendant's liberty must be restored on the existing $500 cash deposit.
27 Oct 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL V.PHAM LUONG TUE

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL V.PHAM LUONG TUE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3380/1993

Given the substantial public interest in ensuring a major criminal trial proceeds with all relevant evidence and the reasonable prospect that the respondents could give evidence within the next 12 weeks, the judge exercised his discretion to grant detention under s32(4)(b) for a limited period (not exceeding 21 days from 8 October 1993), finding that the necessity for the administration of justice outweighed the respondents' liberty interests in the circumstances.
27 Oct 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NGO THI NGUNG

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NGO THI NGUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3313/1993

Where the Court is satisfied that continued detention under s32(4)(b) is reasonably necessary to secure attendance of material prosecution witnesses and that there is a realistic prospect of their giving evidence within a reasonable period, the balance of public interest in administering justice outweighs the private interest in immediate repatriation; accordingly a detention order for a limited period (21 days from 8 October 1993) was lawful and justified.
27 Oct 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL V. NGUYEN KHAC TINH AND OTHERS

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL V. NGUYEN KHAC TINH AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3374/1993

The court held that, on the facts, the public interest in ensuring an important criminal trial proceeds and the reasonable prospect that the respondents would give evidence within a limited period (assessed as within 12 weeks) outweighed their individual interest in immediate repatriation; accordingly, detention orders under s32(4)(b) were lawful and should be granted for a further period not exceeding 21 days from 8 October 1993 for the 20 respondents whose applications remained.
7 Oct 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TRAN VAN TIEP

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TRAN VAN TIEP
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3312/1993

The court granted detention for the 20 respondents for a period not exceeding 21 days from 8 October 1993 because, on balance, the powerful public interest in securing availability of material evidence at a major criminal trial outweighed the respondents' liberty interests; the court found a realistic prospect that the witnesses could give evidence within a reasonable time (by end of December) and confined detention to a limited, reasonably necessary period. Jurisdictional objections were inapplicable because valid executive authorisations under s13E preceded s32(4)(a) orders in these cases.

Hong Kong Case Law

MA CHUN MAN v. COMMISSIONER OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

HKSAR v. LEUNG KA KIT

ATTORNEY GENERAL V.PHAM LUONG TUE

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NGO THI NGUNG

ATTORNEY GENERAL V. NGUYEN KHAC TINH AND OTHERS

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. TRAN VAN TIEP