Court declines to determine lawfulness of detention where proceedings had become moot

Asylum and immigration – article 40 – Chinese national challenged the lawfulness of his detention – deportation order made – arrested for failure to comply with the statutory requirements to present – applied for an inquiry into the lawfulness of his detention on Friday - inquiry was directed returnable for Monday – released on the evening of the Friday - scope of the court’s function – asked to inquire into the lawfulness of his previous detention - cannot order release because he has already been released – argued that the Court could make declarations – law in relation to habeas corpus - court does not have jurisdiction under Article 40 to grant stand-alone relief like a declaration – court should not trouble itself with the merits of a moot action - fact that the applicant seems to be contemplating some form of separate civil action for damages does not constitute a reason for departing from that general principle - default rule applies that the court should not get into the merits of a moot case - only issue is costs - whether the mootness arose from unilateral actions of one party and, if so, whether there is a causal nexus with the proceedings – Court rejects the application to consider declaratory relief as being outside the jurisdiction of the court in the context of an Article 40 application – Court declines to otherwise decide on the merits of the Article 40 application on the grounds that the proceedings became moot – costs to be determined at a later date.