← All Authorities
Hong Kong Leading Case article 27 fundamental rightsgrounds procedural improprietypublic authority duties

Secretary for Security v Sakthevel Prabakar

(2005) 8 HKCFAR 1
JurisdictionHong Kong
CourtHK Court of Final Appeal
Year2005
StatusBinding authority

Summary

High procedural fairness standards are required in immigration decisions where a person faces a real risk of torture upon removal, engaging Basic Law Art 28.

Key Principle

high standards of fairness in immigration decisions involving torture risk; BL Art 28

Area of Law

constitutional

Related Cases

NZYQ v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (2023) 97 ALJR 1005

Indefinite administrative detention of a non-citizen with no real prospect of removal is unlawful as punitive and contrary to Ch III of the Australian Constitution, overruling Al-Kateb v Godwin.

Farm Transparency International v NSW (2022) 276 CLR 81

HCA upheld NSW ag-gag laws as valid notwithstanding a burden on the implied freedom of political communication, applying the structured proportionality test.

Palmer v Western Australia (2021) 272 CLR 505

HCA upheld WA COVID-19 border closure legislation as valid under s.92, finding restrictions on interstate movement were reasonably necessary and proportionate to protect public health.

Ask CommonBench about this case

Get a detailed analysis of Secretary for Security v Sakthevel Prabakar and how it applies to your situation.

Explain Secretary for Security v Sakth...