Read the full judgment text of CACV 205/2018 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 27 August 2018 before Lam VP, Kwan JA, Barma JA.
Civil appeal – judicial review – non-refoulement claim – torture claim – appeal against refusal of leave to apply for judicial review – Bangladeshi national – alleged threats and beatings by private individual named Kalam demanding money – whether state acquiescence or involvement made out – whether judge gave adequate reasons – Bangladeshi national with long history of overstaying and multiple entries to Hong Kong – claim assessed as non-refoulement claim by Director – Director rejected BOR 3, persecution, torture and BOR 2 risks – Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissed appeal on credibility and lack of substantial risk – viability of internal relocation – enhanced Wednesbury standard – scope of appeal from refusal of leave – role of Court in judicial review not to provide further avenue of appeal – assessment of evidence and COI primarily within province of Board – Court will not intervene absent errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality – appellant must demonstrate judge made errors of law or was plainly wrong – fresh evidence on appeal must satisfy Ladd v Marshall – new arguments not canvassed below generally not entertained – Practice Direction 4.1 – non-compliance with unless order to lodge skeleton submissions treated as abandonment of right to oral hearing – appeal processed on paper – whether fresh COI materials (dated 2010 and 2011) should be admitted – applicant failed to show they were placed before Board – no exceptional circumstances – new ground attacking Board's use of COI adds nothing – appeal dismissed.
Legal issues: Whether the judge erred in law in holding that there was no state acquiescence or involvement · Whether the judge failed to provide detailed reasons for refusing leave · Whether fresh COI materials should be admitted on appeal
Outcome: Appeal dismissed.
Cited by 13 cases · Cites 16 cases