decision was upheld by a chief immigration officer at the
airport, but whilst arrangments were being made for Mr
Boyle to leave Hong Kong, he asked and was allowed to
make a number of long distance telephone calls.
Eventually he spoke to an official at Consular Department
here at the FCO, and as Mr Boyle acknowledges, he was able to help. The Director of the Hong Kong Immigration Department then exercised his discretion personally and allowed Mr Boyle a visit of up to one month.
Mr Boyle in his letter makes a number of complaints about
his treatment by Immigration Officials at Hong Kong
airport. According to the report I have received, Hong Kong Immigration Department are satisfied that Immigration Officers behaved correctly throughout.
\to
The officer who advised Mr Boyle that his wife and
children could enter Hong Kong was acting in good faith.
As to Mr Boyle's request to speak to a UK representative,
Hong Kong Immigration Department suggest that there was a
misunderstanding. The officer who handled the case
recalled that Mr Boyle asked to speak to an officer in
the British Consulate. He was told that there was no
British Consulate in Hong Kong. This is correct; as a
British Dependent Territory there is no UK Consulate in
Hong Kong. I am assured the officer did not mean to be
unhelpful. The report also states that Mr Boyle's wife
and children were taken to the restaurant for a meal at
17.30 on that day.
As to Mr Boyle's assertion that he was permitted to use
the telephone only after a great deal of pressure, I am
told a large notice is displayed in the arrival
immigration area advising passengers who have been
refused entry of their right to make telephone calls. On