Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Risk of re-offending

  • 13 Mar 2025

    HAYAT SIKANDAR v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2025] HKCFI 1085
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL412/2025

    Detention was lawful and not unreasonable: a valid removal order and statutory power supported detention; the Director demonstrated reasonable diligence in seeking an emergency travel document and prioritising determination of the JR; the applicant's persistent refusal to cooperate with re-entry formalities and the real risks of absconding and re-offending arising from his serious robbery conviction justified continued detention; periods of detention caused by the applicant's own conduct cannot be treated as rendering detention unlawful; on balance 140 days was reasonable under s.32(4A).

  • 13 Sept 2024

    KO KANG SUK v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2024] HKCA 848
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV132/2024

    The Court of Appeal allowed the respondents' appeal, set aside the first-instance order granting habeas corpus and dismissed the Applicant's habeas application because, on reassessment taking into account the applicant-attributable delays (including failure to file promptly and refusal to accept settlement), the high risks of abscondence and re-offending, and a realistic estimate of the time to dispose of any potential leave application, HS2 and HS3 (the Hardial Singh reasonableness requirements) remained satisfied and detention remained lawful and foreseeable.

  • 27 Sept 2023

    KO KANG SUK v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

    Citation
    [2023] HKCFI 2461
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL1437/2023

    Balancing the statutory detention purpose, the period of detention (135 days), the Director/Secretary's demonstrated diligence (including arrangements for an emergency travel document), and the continuing real risks of absconding and re-offending, the Court concluded that detention remained reasonable and lawful; the existence of leave for judicial review did not make removal impossible within a reasonable time given the realistic prospect of prompt priority hearing or remission to the Board, so habeas corpus was dismissed.

  • 29 Dec 2020

    HKSAR v. LAI, CHEE YING

    Citation
    [2020] HKCFI 3161
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCP738/2020

    Bail was granted because the court found the prosecution’s case on both charges presently arguable but not overwhelmingly strong, that identified flight risk and re-offending risks could be adequately ameliorated by stringent, case-specific conditions (HK$10 million cash, three cash sureties, surrender of travel documents, reporting, and strict residence confinement), and because the tailored undertaking and residence confinement supplied sufficient grounds under NSL 42(2) to believe the applicant would not commit acts endangering national security while on bail.

  • 29 Dec 2020

    HKSAR v. LAI, CHEE YING

    Citation
    [2020] HKCFI 3161
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCP727/2020

    Bail was granted because, considering the not-yet-conclusive state of the evidence, arguable defences, the Applicant's compliance history, and because the bespoke and stringent conditions proposed and accepted (HK$10 million cash bail, three cash sureties, surrender of travel documents, reporting, confinement to residence with narrow exceptions, and an express undertaking prohibiting conduct that could be construed as requesting foreign sanctions including specific prohibitions on meetings with foreign officials, media appearances, publication, and social media use) adequately ameliorate the…

  • 25 Aug 2020

    HKSAR v. TONG YING KIT

    Citation
    [2020] HKCFI 2196
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCCP463/2020

    Article 42 of the NSL does not abolish the presumption of innocence or the statutory presumption of bail; it requires that greater weight be given to the risk of re-offending in NSL cases but does not remove the court's bail jurisdiction; on the facts bail was properly refused on conventional grounds (flight risk and risk of re-offending) even without relying on Article 42.