Read the full judgment text of CACV 216/2017 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 11 January 2018 before Cheung CJHC and Lam VP.
Administrative law – judicial review – leave to apply for judicial review – non-refoulement claim – CAT claim – BOR 2 / BOR 3 / persecution risk – immigration – standard of fairness – whether the 'high standard of fairness' standard under Sakthevel Prabakar requires automatic provision of free legal representation to a claimant at all stages of the proceedings, including on appeal to the Torture Claims Appeal Board and for the Director's further assessment of BOR 2 risk – held, no automatic right to legal representation at every stage, and the absence of representation at those stages was not shown to be procedurally unfair – whether failure to provide a translation of the Non-Refoulement Claim Form and an interpreter for an English letter from the Immigration Department on BOR 2 risk rendered the proceedings unfair – held, no procedural unfairness where the form was completed with interpreter assistance, no complaint of improper translation was raised at the hearings, the applicant did not request language assistance in respect of the letter, and he was able to submit additional facts within the time frame – enhanced Wednesbury standard of review – applicant, a Pakistani national who entered Hong Kong illegally in September 2013 claiming threats from the Sipah-e-Sahaba Pakistan group, was provided duty lawyer representation before the Director but not on appeal – appeal dismissed with no order as to costs, applicant appearing in person.
Legal issues: Legal representation in non-refoulement proceedings · Translation and language assistance in non-refoulement proceedings
Outcome: Appeal dismissed; refusal of leave to apply for judicial review upheld
Cited by 816 cases · Cites 1 case