Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Witness detention

Legal area

Court

29 Nov 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. PHUNG VAN TOAN

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. PHUNG VAN TOAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3382/1993

Assuming for present purposes that the section 13E(1) orders were valid and that s32(4)(a) authorisations existed, the public interest in ensuring the proper administration of justice and securing important Crown witnesses within a reasonable time outweighed the respondents' private interest in immediate repatriation; accordingly the court granted further s32(4)(b) detention renewals (14 days from 3 December 1993) for all respondents except three where detention was unnecessary or previously agreed not to be pursued; procedural sealing defect was not fatal.
29 Nov 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NGO THI NGUNG

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NGO THI NGUNG
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3313/1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NGO THI NGUNG
29 Nov 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NGUYEN THI HOAN

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NGUYEN THI HOAN
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3378/1993

The court, assuming for present purposes that statutory preconditions (valid s.13E(1) and s.32(4)(a) authorisations) were met, found the public interest in preserving the integrity of a complex murder trial and the need to keep material Crown witnesses available outweighed the respondents' interest in immediate repatriation; accordingly the court granted further detention orders under s.32(4)(b) for 14 days from 3 December 1993 for all respondents except three identified individuals, while reserving jurisdictional and validity challenges to be determined later with appropriate evidence.
29 Nov 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NGUYEN THI HUE

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NGUYEN THI HUE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3315/1993

The court, having postponed argument on the jurisdictional challenge pending evidence from the Director, exercised its discretion to grant limited further detention orders under s.32(4)(b) because the Crown demonstrated that witnesses' evidence was sufficiently important and there was a reasonable prospect they would give evidence within a reasonable time; therefore detention orders for 14 days from 3 December 1993 were granted for all respondents except the three identified, and procedural objections (unsealed originating motions) were rejected as clerical and non‑determinative.
17 Nov 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. DO VAN TIEM

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. DO VAN TIEM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3375/1993

Given the unchanged facts and the reasonable prospect that the respondents will give evidence in the near future, the court concluded continuing detention under s.32(4)(b) is justified but limited the extension to a short defined period until 26 November 1993 to allow fuller argument on alternatives and ordered procedural steps for any further extension.
27 Oct 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NGUYEN THI HUE

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NGUYEN THI HUE
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3315/1993

The court exercised its discretion to grant detention orders under s32(4)(b) because the public interest in securing material evidence for an important criminal trial outweighed the respondents' interests in prompt repatriation, given there was a reasonable prospect the respondents could give evidence within the next 12 weeks and detention should be limited to that necessary period.
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. BUI BA PHI AND OTHERS

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL V. BUI BA PHI AND OTHERS
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3376/1993

The court exercised its discretion to grant detention under s32(4)(b) for a limited period (not exceeding 21 days from 8 October 1993) because there was a realistic prospect that the respondents could give their evidence within a reasonable time (assessed as by end of December), and the public interest in ensuring the proper administration of justice outweighed the respondents' interest in immediate repatriation; detention must be limited and subject to fresh judicial consideration thereafter.
27 Oct 1993

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. DO VAN TIEM

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. DO VAN TIEM
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCMP3375/1993

The court exercised its discretion to order detention under s32(4)(b) for a limited period (not exceeding 21 days from 8 October 1993) because the public interest in securing the availability of material witnesses for a major criminal trial and the realistic prospect that they would give evidence within the next 12 weeks outweighed the respondents' interest in immediate repatriation; detention must be limited to a reasonable period necessary to achieve that purpose.
27 Oct 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

On balance the court exercised its discretion to grant detention for a further period not exceeding 21 days from 8 October 1993 under s32(4)(b) because there was a realistic prospect the respondents could give their evidence within the next 12 weeks and the public interest in ensuring the proper administration of justice outweighed the respondents' interests given the proportionality of the period ordered.