immigration legislation governing entry into, stay in and departure from Hong Kong, or the application of any such legislation."
50.
In this High Court case, which, as yet, is unreported,
and which is known as Wong King Lung and others v. Director of Immigration HCMP 4151 of 1992 Mr Justice Jones delivered judgment on 22 June 1993.
51. At p.17 of the judgement, Mr Justice Jones cited argument
from counsel
"[It is submitted] that it is important to observe that it is clearly not the legislative intention to exclude all decisions which the Director of Immigration can make in relation to persons who do not have the right of abode. The Director has the power to maintain in custody persons who are suspected to be illegal immigrants but in that respect those persons would be able to bring a claim under the BORO if it is alleged that there has been a
breach of their rights during custody. The only
decisions which are excluded from the operation of the BORO are those governing the entry, stay and removal from Hong Kong."
Then at p.20 he ruled
"I am satisfied that if any of the applicants' rights are
infringed whilst they are in Hong Kong as for instance,
under Article 3, which is concerned with torture, inhuman
or degrading treatment, those rights are protected under
the BORO".
52. It is arguable that the decision to detain without granting permission to land or remain pending consideration of the question of an asylum claim is a decision which is an application of the Immigration Ordinance to entry into and stay in Hong Kong. If so, the provisions of the BORO do not
Arb.Det
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.