Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Section 32(4)(b) immigration ordinance

Legal area

Court

29 Nov 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LE BA THANG

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. LE BA THANG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3389/1993

The court held that (a) it would assume for present purposes the existence of valid section 13E(1) and section 32(4)(a) authorisations while reserving jurisdictional challenges for later hearing with Director’s evidence; (b) balancing public interest in securing crucial Crown witnesses against respondents’ interests, detention under section 32(4)(b) was lawful and necessary for most respondents for a limited period; and (c) technical defects in sealing originating motions did not defeat the substantive applications.
17 Nov 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 granted further short-term detention as a proportionate measure to secure the respondents' attendance as witnesses because there remained a realistic prospect they would be required to give evidence in the near future, there was no fully developed alternative on the record, and the detention sought was limited in duration; the court set a specific expiry (26 November) and procedural directions for the Attorney General to apply further if needed with evidence filed by a set 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.PHAM LUONG TUE

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL V.PHAM LUONG TUE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3380/1993

The court granted a limited further detention period (until 26 November 1993) because the need to secure the respondents' attendance to give evidence remained and, in the absence of full argument on proposed alternatives, the court would keep detention in place for a short, specified period while allowing the Attorney General liberty to apply for extension with further evidence.
17 Nov 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL V. BUI BA PHI AND OTHERS

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL V. BUI BA PHI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3376/1993

The continuation of detention was justified on the existing reasons and the reasonable prospect that respondents would give their evidence in the near future, but the extension must be limited and subject to procedural safeguards; accordingly detention was extended only until 26 November with liberty to the Attorney General to apply for further detention and directions to file and serve further evidence by specified dates.
17 Nov 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL V TRIRU VAN THUC AND ANOTHER

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL V TRIRU VAN THUC AND ANOTHER
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3386/1993

Given the ongoing need for the respondents to give evidence at trial and the realistic prospect they will do so in the near future, the court will grant a limited extension of detention until 26 November while permitting the Attorney General liberty to apply for further detention beyond that date and requiring the Attorney General to file and serve further evidence by a prescribed deadline; alternative proposals were acknowledged but not decided pending fuller argument.
27 Oct 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL V. NGUYEN THI HOAN

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL V. NGUYEN THI HOAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3378/1993

Given the substantial public interest in ensuring an important murder trial proceeds with all relevant evidence and the realistic prospect that the named respondents could give their evidence within the next 12 weeks, the court lawfully exercised its discretion to order detention under s.32(4)(b) for a limited period; the detention was proportionate and reasonably necessary and therefore lawful, and the Attorney General's applications were granted for up to 21 days from 8 October 1993.
27 Oct 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL V. PHAM THI XA

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL V. PHAM THI XA
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3371/1993

Balancing the significant public interest in securing admissible evidence for a major criminal trial against the respondents' personal liberty, the court found there was a reasonable prospect the respondents would give evidence within a reasonable time (assumed by court to be by end of December) and therefore lawfully exercised its discretion to order detention under s.32(4)(b) for a further period not exceeding 21 days from 8 October 1993.
27 Oct 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 on the facts the public interest in ensuring availability of relevant prosecution witnesses for a major criminal trial outweighed the respondents' interest in immediate repatriation; there was a reasonable prospect the respondents would give evidence within the next 12 weeks, and therefore detention orders under s32(4)(b) for a period not exceeding 21 days from 8 October 1993 were lawful and should be granted for the 20 applicants.