P

GUVERNMENT HOUSE

HUNG KUNG

91

3-22 11:16

1991-03-22 17:32 AGC

852 869 0720 P.02

From

Attorney General's Chambers

MEMO

To

Secretary for Security (Attn.: Mr. C. Leeks)

་་་་ ་་་1..............

кар

Tel. No.

867 2157

Your Ref.

.In...

1

KEMBALIM

22 maron 1991

Date

dated

PHGE 17

I have

of FCO Telno 539

been

asked to respond to para. 2(c)

and I do so by way of comment on the Bummary referred to in paragraph 5 of the telegram. I will not deal with drafting points.

1. Powers to detain Vietnamese Boat People

1 (1)

1 (2)

1 (3)

The initial detention of a person who arrives in Hong Kong without valid travel

travel documents is not an arbitrary detention within the Art. 9(1) ICCPR.

A legal requirement that A person who has landed in Hong Kong without valid travel documents be further detained after the initial detention for the purpose of ascertaining whether he or she is a refugee or is otherwise a person who is entitled to remain in Hong

Kong is not arbitrary detention within the

meaning of Art. 9(1) ICCPR.

The detention for the purposes of repatriation of a person who is neither a refugee nor otherewise established an entitlement to remain in Hong Kong is not arbitrary detention within the meaning of Art. 9(1), ICCPR.

It is not the purpose of the amendment under reference to ensure that "the initial detention to detain will remain good for however long it takes to carry out screening and, if applicable, removal to Vietnam". The amendment does not abridge the right to seek judicial review of detention nor does it, further restrict the existing legal powers of the Director of Immigration to release a person detained under Section 13D by exempting him or her from compliance with visa requirements and thus taking them out of S. 13D altogether,

This provision highlights important factors which are clearly relevant to any review of detention under this section based on effluxion of time and does not prevent a detainee from seeking a review of his or her detention on other grounds. Therefore ΠΟ question of a violation of Article 9(4) would seem to arise.

گار

Share This Page