CONFIDENTIAL
believe is the case;
(b) in the case of detention pending removal, a provision to require a court to have regard to the availability of repatriation by mandatory or voluntary
means. This will require the court to focus on the availability of voluntary repatriation as an alternative to continued detention and to the international efforts being
made to enable mandatory repatriation to go ahead;
(c) a provision to ensure that any Vietnamese who arrives in Hong Kong without a visa (and therefore requires permission to remain) cannot evade detention by refusing to cooperate with immigration examination requirements. This closes a possible loophole that may have arisen following the case of the 111; by claiming that they are not seeking permission to remain, it is possible that future arrivals could evade detention under present legislation;
(d) a provision putting beyond doubt the power to transfer people between centres and, in the case of those transferred for reasons of order and good management, providing for administrative appeal. The Minister asked whether there should not be an independent body to hear appeals against transfer. Hong Kong do not believe it is practicable to provide for a power of appeal in routine (ie non-disciplinary) transfers. There are thousands of these per year: Hong Kong will shortly have completed some 14,000 moves in a few weeks. Some Vietnamese are still held in tents and would need to be removed quickly in bad weather. (There would logically be little to appeal against in these kinds of transfers but, on the advice of outside concern groups, Vietnamese are taking up whatever legal machinery is open to them). In the case of transfer for disciplinary reasons, we intend to seek an undertaking from Hong Kong Government to introduce an independent body to hear appeals.
RIDAJO/5
CONFIDENTIAL