TNAG-2219-FCO40-3187-Constitutional-development-in-Hong-Kong-Letters-Patent-and-R-1991 — Page 52

15-014

DIRECTOR OF ADM.

32

852 877 3802

P.41

ricted

a

..nen a person is on wall ris freeuom 13 certainly

certain ceyree, ut counsel was not able to find single example from any of the numerous jurisdictions lat federal cr state [evel] „nich make up the Commonwealth,

indeed, from any other common law jurisdiction, where

habeas corpus had Deen issued in relation to a person on call,

tevedy which has been known to the common law since

e :th century.

1. Cust

urety

atter,

Lappene;

AS

A trarawn. the

Sefendant will be taken and his restraint can then be challenged. If a Cises his right to arrest the person for whom he -urety and surrenders him into custody so that he

is arrested the available, out as presenti auvisej, even on સ argument that d3 ceen Quuressed to us on the in very firmly inclined to the view that what

entirely misconceived.

as

Jonu,

soon as

arrest of the defendants

Line's position, I simply cannot

as he to withurâ.

and have thein

Lagerstand ..nat as expected of nia.

call, virect the

+

Brought efore nin

+

Picre the

SO that he could "have their wooles

n Court"? The Qunt was made that when the

own recognizance from a

upp.cant. : 、 on cail on

ayisute's court, the only appropriate respondent to the

ماراده

whether

anyone

•

De the aulstrate. This Legs the question

пе writ 25 available and properly addressed to

these circumstances.

Marayraph

uite upart from all this, as noted 10

24/1/1 of the Supreme Court Practice, in relation

"[the writi is of right and granted ex Jepito ustitiae, but not as of course

and may de

to RSC 0.4

•

1:

refused where another remedy lies whereby the validity of the restraint can be effectively questioned. The defendants were free (free in the real sense) to challenge