Read the full judgment text of CACV 200/2018 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 17 September 2018 before Lam VP, Kwan JA, Barma JA.
Administrative law – judicial review – leave – non-refoulement claim – Torture Claims Appeal Board – state acquiescence – state protection – procedural fairness – legal representation – appeal from Deputy High Court Judge refusing leave – Filipina claimant fearing harm from loan shark in the Philippines – whether judge erred in finding no basis for state acquiescence – whether judge erred in finding state protection was available – whether process was procedurally unfair due to lack of legal representation at Board hearing – first issue: no, the duty of diligence in the state acquiescence context under TK v Michael Jenkins and AM v Director of Immigration only arises where the government knows or has reasonable grounds to believe acts of torture or ill-treatment are being committed by non-state actors and takes no preventive action, and the failure must be so gross as to enable persecution with impunity (Ubamaka v Secretary for Security) – materials fell short of threshold – second issue: no, judicial review is not an avenue for revisiting factual assessments in the absence of legal error (Re Lakhwinder Singh; Re Md Himel; Re Munir Qaiser; Re Daljit Singh; Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara) – judge at [41] of the CALL-1 Form adequately addressed the lack of action by local police – third issue: no, the high standard of fairness does not prescribe an absolute right to legal representation at all stages (Re Zunariyah; Re Zahid Abbas; Re Tariq Farhan; Re Lopchan Subash) and the ground was not raised in Form 86 – applicant had Duty Lawyer Scheme representation at the Director stage – focus on the Board's decision, not the Director's, as the Board had overtaken the Director's decisions (Re Moshsin Ali) – appeal dismissed – leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal issues: Whether the judge erred in finding no need to consider state acquiescence · Whether the judge erred in finding state protection was available in the Philippines · Whether the process was procedurally unfair due to lack of legal representation
Outcome: Appeal dismissed; leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Cited by 27 cases · Cites 15 cases