方啟德 v. 香港特別行政區政府

HCAL 1049/2025

[2025] HKCFI 2136

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO. 1049 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

1.  On 6 May 2025, the Applicant filed the form for Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Ex-parte)  under Order 54 of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A (“RHC”)  (“the Application”), together with a handwritten supporting affidavit (“the Affidavit”).

2.  The Affidavit merely states in Chinese (with court translation):

“本人追捕, 勝和, 阿樂, 及報廉政公處, 拘捕他。他可能對我人生不利, 及他的古幼慈, 不停的破壞我一生及星架坡工程師牌”

(I chase and catch Shing Wo Ah Lok and have made a report to the ICAC to arrest him.  He may cause harm to my life, and his Koo Yau Chee kept disrupting my entire life and professional engineer registration in Singapore.)

3.  Having considered the materials, I am satisfied that it is appropriate to deal with this application on paper.

4.  Whilst the usual court form for an application for writ of habeas corpus is used, I am afraid that the Applicant, acting in person, must has misunderstood the purpose of such an application.

5.  Section 22A(1)  of the High Court Ordinance, Cap. 4 provides that:

“An application may be made to the Court of First Instance –

alleging that a person named in the application is being detained without unlawful justification; and

requesting that the issue of a writ of habeas corpus in respect of that person.”

6.  Furthermore, O.54, r.1(2)  of RHC requires that an application for a writ of habeas corpus must be supported by an affidavit by the person restrained showing that it is made at his instance and setting out the nature of the restraint.

7.  A writ of habeas corpus is commonly the remedy for persons who are being wrongfully deprived of their personal liberty and seeks to secure their liberty by requiring his or her immediate release: see Hong Kong Civil Procedure 2025, Vol.1, §54/1/1.

8.  In the present case, nothing suggests that the Applicant is currently being detained or under restraint, whether it be by the respondent, the HKSAR Government, or any other public authorities.  In the Application, a correspondence address of a flat in Austin Road is provided.  It would appear that the Applicant filed the Application and swore the Affidavit by attending the High Court Registry himself.

9.  In any event, nothing in the Application and the Affidavit disclose an application which could be properly adjudicated by this court by way of judicial review.  From the exhibit to the Affidavit, it appears that the Applicant has made a report to the Hong Kong Police.

10.  Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the Application has any substance and should be dismissed, with no order as to costs.