Read the full judgment text of CACV 256/2018 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 18 October 2018 before Yeung VP and Barma JA.
Administrative law – judicial review – non-refoulement claim – leave to apply for judicial review – Refugees Convention 1951 – CAT – internal relocation – localized risk – state protection – whether free legal representation required at all stages – whether high standard of fairness requires unlimited interpretation services – Court of Appeal Civil Appeal No 256 of 2018 – appeal from HCAL 240/2015 – applicant is an Indian National and supporter of the Indian Congress Party who feared harm from a local leader of the Shiromani Akali Dal Party upon return to India – Director of Immigration rejected the claim finding the risk localized to Punjab and that internal relocation within India was reasonable – Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissed the appeal finding the applicant's account inconsistent and that he had been evasive about his role in the Congress Party's election campaign – Deputy High Court Judge refused leave to apply for judicial review – whether the Judge erred in refusing leave – whether a non-refoulement claimant is entitled to free legal representation at all stages – whether the Director properly applied the high standard of fairness in assessing the claim and the weight given to COI on internal relocation – whether lack of language assistance rendered proceedings unfair – Court of Appeal held no entitlement to free legal representation at all stages of a non-refoulement process, citing Re Zunariyah, Re Zahid Abbas, Re Tariq Farhan and Re Lopchan Subash – the high standard of fairness does not require interpretation services to be available at any time the claimant desires, and the applicant gave no particulars of any prejudice – the Director's reliance on objective COI that SAD was only a regional state party, that India has over 1.2 billion people and 28 states, and that the applicant had previously stayed safely with family in other parts of India, properly supported the conclusion that internal relocation was available and reasonable – the threats from a local political figure were a localized one in Punjab, applying TK v Jenkins & Anor [2013] 1 HKC 526 – no error of law or procedural unfairness identified – no reasonably arguable basis to challenge the decisions of the Director and the Board – appeal dismissed – leave to apply for judicial review refused.
Legal issues: Whether the Judge erred in refusing leave to apply for judicial review of the Director's non-refoulement decision · Whether a non-refoulement claimant is entitled to free legal representation at all stages of the process · Whether the applicant was afforded a sufficiently high standard of fairness in the assessment of his claim · Whether the lack of language assistance rendered the proceedings unfair
Outcome: Appeal dismissed; the Court of Appeal upheld the Judge's decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review.
Cited by 199 cases · Cites 6 cases