considering the facts of illegal immigration into Hong Kong and the obvious necessity of custody in preventing him achieving that purpose and the need to deter other illegal immigrants. In all these respects S.32(1)(a) cannot be said to be an arbitrary power of detention.
82. In one respect ECVII cases are different from those from Vietnam who are detained pending screening and, if screened out, detained pending removal. Those from Vietnam may volunteer to return to Vietnam and within about six weeks will
be cleared by the Vietnamese for return and be able to travel to Vietnam. If an ECVII or part of his family are not accepted by the Chinese as having settled in China, they cannot volunteer to return to China and Vietnam will probably not take them if they are identified as having left Vietnam
for China in 1978 or 1979.
4.
83.
However, these few relatively intractable cases are given access to resettlement opportunities on the basis of relatives or the willingness of some countries to take intractable cases. The end point, so far as legality in intractable cases, is that the High Court will release detainees where there is no prospect of a solution. That has
not happened yet in any case. Instead in these two
intractable cases, CAM Gia Ninh and VUONG Son Bach, individual
solutions have been found. Mr CAM Gia Ninh has been given
access to resettlement by UNHCR and Mr VUONG Son Bach and family have been accepted by the United Kingdom despite his wife's presence there under a different identity.
Arb.Det