Read the full judgment text of CACV 225/2017 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 22 January 2018 before Cheung CJHC and Lam VP.
Administrative law – judicial review – non-refoulement claim – torture claim – Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance – Article 2 (right to life) – Article 3 (freedom from torture) – CIDTP – BOR 2 risk – BOR 3 risk – persecution risk – enhanced Wednesbury test – Sakthevel Prabakar v Secretary for Security – FB v Director of Immigration – legal representation – procedural fairness – Country of Origin Information – appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review – appeal dismissed – Nepali national – alleged Maoist threats – overstayed visitor – refused leave to apply for judicial review by Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock – no reasonably arguable case – applicant had opportunity to raise complaint before Board – no absolute right to free legal representation at all stages of CAT/BOR proceedings – applicant already had legal representation before Director – no prejudice identified – COI assessment unchallenged with specificity – appeal without merit – appeal dismissed.
Legal issues: Whether the intended challenge based on lack of opportunity to submit additional materials in respect of BOR 2 risk is arguable · Whether the lack of legal representation at the Board's hearing renders the process unfair · Whether there is a reasonably arguable basis to challenge the use of Country of Origin Information
Outcome: Appeal dismissed; refusal of leave to apply for judicial review upheld.
Cited by 685 cases · Cites 1 case