Read the full judgment text of CACV 258/2017 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 29 March 2018 before Hon Lam VP, Poon JA and L Wong J.
Immigration – deportation order – judicial review – leave to apply for judicial review – applicant lost opportunity to apply for Hong Kong permanent identity card during window period 31 March 2004 to 12 April 2005 – applicant subsequently sentenced to imprisonment – principle in Fateh Muhammad v Commission of Registration (2001) 4 HKCFAR 278 and Asif Ali v Director of Immigration (2013) 16 HKCFAR 91 – Chief Secretary for Administration's decision on 3 July 2017 to execute deportation order – applicant self-represented at leave stage – whether applicant was unfairly treated due to lack of legal representation – held no, as there is no absolute right to legal aid even in non-refoulement cases under Sakthevel Prakabar v Secretary for Security (2004) 7 HKCFAR 187 and FB v Director of Immigration [2009] 2 HKLRD 346, and applicant had previously benefited from legal aid and leading counsel in earlier proceedings – whether applicant was denied chance to file grounds – held no, applicant had in fact filed an Affidavit dated 3 October 2017 – whether fresh evidence and new assertions could be raised on appeal – held no, Ladd v Marshall [1954] 1 WLR 1489 test not satisfied and no basis for relaxation – reference to family rights in late solicitor's letter had no merit per Comilang Milagros Tecson v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 175 – prior refusal of extension of time in HCMP 3159/2016 – applicant had exhausted all means to challenge deportation order – appeal dismissed with no prospect of success in intended judicial review.
Legal issues: Whether applicant was unfairly treated due to lack of legal representation in the judicial review application · Whether applicant was denied the opportunity to file grounds in the judicial review · Whether fresh evidence or documents may be admitted on appeal
Outcome: Appeal dismissed; leave to apply for judicial review refused with no prospect of success in the intended application for judicial review.
Cited by 28 cases · Cites 3 cases