Read the full judgment text of CACV 79/2018 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 26 July 2018 before Lam VP and Barma JA.
Administrative law – non-refoulement claim – judicial review – leave to apply – time extension – duty to update address – legal representation – right to free legal aid – BOR 2 risk – duty to give reasons – Pakistani national entered Hong Kong illegally in 2013 – claim based on fear of political rivals – Director of Immigration rejected BOR 3, persecution, torture and BOR 2 risks – Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissed appeal – application for judicial review filed out of time – First issue: whether the deputy judge erred in refusing to extend time – held no; applicant failed to provide good explanation for delay as he did not inform the Board of his change of address – the duty to keep address updated rests on the litigant – Second issue: whether applicant was entitled to free legal representation for BOR 2 claim – held no; no absolute right to free legal representation at all stages of non-refoulement proceedings – Duty Lawyer Scheme provides representation if appeal has merit – Third issue: whether Director's further decision on BOR 2 provided adequate reasons – held yes; reasons are sufficient when further decision is read together with the earlier decision involving the same primary material – Fourth issue: whether excusing the Director from oral hearing rendered process unfair – held no; this is a matter of case management and the applicant showed no resulting unfairness – appeal struck out and dismissed – leave under section 14AA of the High Court Ordinance not granted.
Legal issues: Whether the deputy judge erred in refusing to extend time for the judicial review application · Whether the applicant was entitled to free legal representation for his BOR 2 claim · Whether the Director's further decision on BOR 2 provided adequate reasons · Whether excusing the Director from the oral hearing rendered the process unfair
Outcome: Appeal struck out and dismissed; leave under section 14AA of the High Court Ordinance not granted.
Cited by 188 cases · Cites 11 cases