1. The Appellant is a Pakistani national who had committed offences of overstaying in Hong Kong in 1992, 1994, 1999 and 2000 respectively, entering each time with a passport bearing a slightly different name and a different date of birth. When convicted in respect of his last period of overstaying, he was sentenced to a total of 7 months’ imprisonment. 2. Upon being discharged from prison, the Director of Immigration immediately placed him under administrative detention pursuant to section 32(2A) of the Immigration Ordinance. A removal order against him was made on 10 September 2005 but it was not served because the Appellant lodged a claim under the Convention Against Torture (“CAT”) against being returned to Pakistan. The removal order was revoked on 15 September 2005 and the Appellant was eventually released on recognizance on 7 October 2005 as his CAT claim was processed. 3. The Appellant sued the Director for damages for false imprisonment claiming that he had been unlawfully detained during the six week period after his release from prison. His claim failed in the District Court and in the Court of Appeal. 4. The Court of Final Appeal allowed his appeal. It held that his detention was initially lawful but that the Director was duty bound to decide with reasonable diligence and expedition whether it would be possible to reach a decision to remove him within the time limits for detention laid down in section 32(2A) of the Immigration Ordinance and to release him once it became clear that such decision could not be reached in time. The Court held that if the Director had acted with reasonable diligence and expedition, his release would have occurred 10 days earlier and held that liability in damages for false imprisonment for those 10 days had been established. 5. The Court did not accept the Appellant’s submission that the entire period of detention was unlawful because the Director had breached a public law duty to publish a statement of policy identifying the criteria to be adopted in exercising his powers under section 32. No such duty was held to exist, the question being instead whether the person affected was able to know enough about the basis of his or her detention to be able to make informed and meaningful representations regarding the exercise of the power. Because of the built-in requirements of section 32 and because of the Appellant’s background as a repeated immigration offender, he was well aware of the basis of his detention in the present case. 6. The Court held that arguments raised by the Appellant on the basis of Article 5(1) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights and Articles 28 and 41 of the Basic Law added nothing to the public law argument which had succeeded. It also held that in any event, by virtue of Article 39 of the Basic Law and the immigration exception contained in section 11 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance, the Appellant was unable to rely on those constitutional provisions. 7. Taking the trial judge’s assessment of $30,000 for the entire period as a base, the Court awarded the Appellant $10,000 as damages for false imprisonment on the basis of his having unlawfully been detained for 10 days and accordingly allowed the appeal.