Read the full judgment text of CACV 219/2018 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 3 September 2018 before Hon Lam VP, Yuen and Kwan JJA.
Administrative law – judicial review – non-refoulement claim – Bangladesh national – appeal against Court of First Instance's refusal of leave to apply for judicial review of the Torture Claims Appeal Board's decision – applicant alleged threats from Awami League supporters after refusing to join their party or pay a substantial sum – alleged police inaction – Director's Decision of 20 July 2016 against claim on torture risk, persecution risk, and BOR 3 risk – Further Decision of 21 July 2017 also assessed BOR 2 risk – Board's Decision of 21 December 2017 dismissing appeal – Form 86 filed 28 December 2017 – Practice Direction 4.1 – unless order of 12 July 2018 for skeleton submissions by 8 August 2018 – non-compliance treated as abandonment of right to oral hearing – hearing date of 22 August 2018 vacated – appeal processed on materials lodged only – Court of Appeal's general approach: enhanced standard of scrutiny in non-refoulement cases does not permit Court to usurp role of Board – appeal against refusal of leave is not occasion to regurgitate arguments rejected below or to run new fact-and-evidence sensitive arguments – fresh evidence must satisfy Ladd v Marshall – new arguments generally not entertained if not canvassed below – whether Board misdirected itself in law on assessment of risk of torture by requiring past torture to establish future risk – held no misdirection – Board correctly applied the test from Ubamaka requiring substantial grounds for belief of real risk of future ill-treatment – applicant did not produce COI materials before Board or court below – belated general assertions at appeal stage rejected – applicant acted in person – appeal dismissed
Legal issues: Non-compliance with unless order to lodge skeleton submissions · Whether the Board misdirected itself in law on assessment of risk of torture · Whether the judge erred in refusing leave to apply for judicial review
Outcome: Appeal dismissed
Cited by 224 cases · Cites 19 cases