Read the full judgment text of CACV 65/2018 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 29 May 2018 before Chu JA, Barma JA.
Civil appeal – judicial review – leave to apply for judicial review – non-refoulement claim – Pakistani national entered Hong Kong illegally on 25 December 2013 – arrested 28 December 2013 – lodged non-refoulement claim 30 December 2013 – claim based on threats from opposing political party PPP after father's killing – PML-N supporters targeted – Director of Immigration decided against claim on 24 March 2016 covering BOR 3 risk, persecution risk and torture risk – Further Decision of 16 December 2016 assessed and rejected BOR 2 risk – Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissed appeals on 9 June 2017 – Form 86 filed 12 July 2017 – three grounds: lack of legal representation, lack of language assistance, lack of reasons in Further Decision – complaint of non-receipt of Notice of Hearing – Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock refused leave to apply for judicial review on 5 March 2018 – applicant filed notice of appeal 19 March 2018 – agreed to two-judge hearing – failed to lodge skeleton submissions – Court of Appeal dealt with appeal on paper – Whether leave application should have been disposed of on paper – held: paper disposal appropriate as applicant absent without explanation and did not request another hearing date – Whether lack of legal representation violated high standard of fairness – held: no absolute right to free legal representation at all stages under Secretary for Security v Sakthevel Prabakar (2004) 7 HKCFAR 187 and FB v Director of Immigration HCAL 51 of 2007 – applicant had legal representation before Director for BOR 3/persecution/torture assessment – duty lawyer scheme assesses case-by-case – Whether lack of language assistance rendered process unfair – held: interpretation services available at Board hearing – no error of law or procedure – complaint about English letter for BOR 2 information without merit – Whether Further Decision provided adequate reasons – held: Further Decision read with Director Decision provided adequate reasoning – Director concluded at §23 no genuine and substantial risk – Further Decision overtaken by Board Decision – enhanced Wednesbury test satisfied – no reasonably arguable basis – appeal dismissed
Legal issues: Whether leave application should have been disposed of on paper · Whether lack of legal representation violated high standard of fairness · Whether lack of language assistance rendered the process unfair · Whether Further Decision provided adequate reasons
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Cited by 59 cases · Cites 1 case