賴潤帶 v. 警務處處長蕭澤頤 AND ANOTHER

HCAL 17/2023

[2023] HKCFI 230

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 17 OF 2023

________________________

BETWEEN
	賴潤帶	Applicant
	and
	警務處處長蕭澤頤	1st Respondent
	保安局局長鄧炳強	2nd Respondent

________________________

Before:

Hon Coleman J in Chambers (Open to Public)

Date of Decision:

14 February 2023

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  On 5 January 2023, the Applicant filed a form for the “Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Ex-parte)” under Rules of High Court (“RHC”) Order 54 rule 1, together with a handwritten supporting affirmation. I can deal with the application on the papers.

2.  Whilst the usual court form for application for writ of habeas corpus is used, I am afraid the Applicant (who is acting in person) must have misunderstood the purpose of such an application.

3.  An application for writ of habeas corpus is an application seeking release from unlawful detention. Such an application is made under section 22A of the High Court Ordinance Cap 4. Further, RHC Order 54 rule 1(2) requires that an application for writ of habeas corpus must be supported by an affidavit/affirmation by the person restrained setting out the nature of restraint.

4.  However, the Applicant’s supporting affirmation discloses that she is not currently under detention or restraint, either by the two defendants named in this application – the Commissioner of Police and the Secretary for Security – or any other public authorities. Indeed, she stated in the affirmation that she has been living with her children at her home. Her correspondence address as stated in the form is a flat in a residential estate in Mongkok.

5.  Also, it is clear that the nature of the Applicant’s complaint is very different. In her affirmation, she said that she has been drugged by people (who she referred to as “they” without further identification) for years. These people came to her home to drug her, using pills, drug powder, or gas. She says she has reported the case to Mongkok Police Station but she does not know if they recorded her case. But ever since, she found that she was followed by an ambulance or a police vehicle. The drugs have caused her grave harm. She was treated in hospital, but she did not think the doctor could help her. At the end of the affirmation, she demanded the Mongkok Police station to explain why they did not put her reports on record and why her mobile phone, her home and movements have been kept under surveillance.

6.  Apparently, the Applicant has complained to the Chief Executive’s Office (“CEO”) about how Mongkok Police Station had handled her crime reports. Exhibited to the affirmation is a letter dated 5 December 2022, issued by the Mongkok Police Station to the Applicant, saying that her complaint to the CEO had been transferred to them for follow-up, and that no crime elements were found in her reports after investigation. The Police also put it on record that, upon her agreement, her case would be referred to the Social Welfare Department.

7.  As is clear from the above, Order 54 rule 1(2) has not been met, and the application is actually misconceived.

8.  Therefore, the application is dismissed, with no order as to costs.

(Russell Coleman) Judge of the Court of First Instance High Court

The applicant, acting in person