countrymen in China and is detrimental to the friendship between the people of China and Hong Kong". To have allowed the above described influx of those from Vietnam to live and work in Hong Kong in these circumstances would have caused serious social unrest and a breakdown of public order.
65. In these circumstances, there is no little doubt that S.13D detention without consideration of each person's individual circumstances will not be judged to be arbitrary in
any Hong Kong court.
66. It is also the position that no one has tried to test the validity of S.13D since the Tran and Khue case in 1991, arguing the BORO points or otherwise, in the Hong Kong courts. Our conclusion is that there is widespread acceptance of the point that detention of those qualifying under S.13D was and is necessary without consideration of individual
circumstances, and that such detention is not arbitrary. There is no breach of the ICCPR, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights or any other international treaty.
67. Because of the massive influx in 1988-90 of over 50,000
people it was and is inevitable that refugee screening of a high standard will take years to complete. The number of issues to be considered in even one more complicated case may take many days. A recent judicial review challenging a screening decision in the High Court took 60 days. As is shown elsewhere money and resources have been fully available
to meet this problem of screening. Nonetheless there remain over 4,000 who have not yet been screened at first instance by the Immigration Department. In many cases, there will have been a deliberate avoidance of the screening process. The
problem was addressed legally by a reform in Hong Kong law
effected by the Immigration Amendment Ordinance 1991
(Ordinance 52 of 1991). This added new subsections 1A and 1B
to S.13D. These state
Arb.Det
No comments yet.
Private notes are available after approval.