Read the full judgment text of CACV 137/2018 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 2 August 2018 before Cheung CJHC and Barma JA.
Civil appeal – judicial review – leave to apply for judicial review – non-refoulement claim – Pakistani national Muhammad Usman – fear of harm from Islamist extremist organisation Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) – alleged framing for murders and police detention – previous deportations and assaults on return to Pakistan – last illegal entry to Hong Kong in June 2007 – arrested January 2008 – torture claim lodged February 2008 – treated as non-refoulement claim under Unified Screening Mechanism from March 2014 – Director of Immigration rejected claim on 24 July 2015 covering BOR 3 risk, persecution risk, and torture risk – further decision on 24 October 2016 covering BOR 2 risk – Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissed appeal on 6 July 2017 – applicant filed Form 86 on 4 August 2017 with no grounds – supporting affirmation merely stated dissatisfaction with decision – deputy judge refused leave to apply for judicial review on 20 April 2018 – whether deputy judge's decision unfair for being made without oral hearing – held no as applicant did not request oral hearing under Order 53 rule 3(3) of the Rules of the High Court – applicant had already had oral hearing before board – whether state protection and internal relocation grounds can be raised for first time on appeal – held no as appeal is not occasion to introduce new grounds after original grounds failed below – new grounds also not meritorious as director and board made detailed assessments – no errors of law or procedure in proceedings before director or board – evaluation of risk of harm is primarily matter for director and board as primary decision makers – court will not usurp their role in judicial review which is supervisory not appellate – reference to TK v Jenkins – no prospect of success in intended application – appeal dismissed
Legal issues: Fairness of leave decision made without oral hearing · Raising new grounds for first time in appeal from refusal of leave · Whether leave to apply for judicial review should be granted
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Cited by 30 cases · Cites 12 cases