>
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
3. that the Applicant be restrained from arguing the grounds of that application unless he first obtains the leave of the Court and satisfied the court that such application is not an abuse of the process and that there are reasonable grounds for the application;
4. that such application for leave be heard by a Division Court, inter partes on notice, within fourteen days of the application being filed with the Court;
that in the event that no such application for leave is made or that leave is not granted the application be dismissed."
Although the Government of Hong Kong does not directly
ask for the matter to be dealt with in this way, for reasons
which I will explain later, I propose to treat the
Government's cross-application as being an application that
the applicant's present application be dismissed as being an
abuse of the process of the court. This judgment relates to
both the cross-application and the applicant's application for
habeas corpus.
The law.
It used to be thought that it was open to an applicant to make as many applications for habeas corpus as he
was able to find judges to hear those applications. However
two decisions, one in the Queen's Bench Division and one in
the Chancery Division in 1959, made it clear that that was an
over-simplification of the situation and that if there was any automatic right to make successive applications that was confined to the vacation and did not apply during term time when the Divisional Court was sitting.
The first of those two cases was the case of Hastings
(No. 2) [1959] 1 QB 358 and the second was Hastings (No. 3)
H
2