Re Diallo Thierno Amadou

HCAL 486/2017

[2018] HKCFI 2391

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 486 OF 2017

______________

______________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

1.On 4 May 2018 I refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) in dismissing his appeal/petition regarding his non-refoulement claim upon finding no ground had been put forward by him, nor could I find any which might be reasonably arguable or with any prospect of success in his intended application.

2.The applicant now by a summons issued on 4 September 2018 for leave to appeal against that decision out of time, as the 14-day period for him to lodge his appeal under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A ended on 18 May 2018, and hence he was late by more than three and a half months.

3.In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the court will have regard to: (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted.

4.In the applicant’s case a delay of more than three months must be considered as excessive.  In his supporting affirmation of the same date he explained that he did not look early into his mail box to realize that the decision had arrived, and that after receiving it he did not know what to do until he was advised by a friend to appeal that he realized that he was already out of time.

5.While being ignorant of the law or the rule can never be an acceptable reason for delay, not checking one’s own mail for the court’s decision is clearly in the circumstances self-inflicted, and as he did not provide any draft or proposed ground of appeal, I am unable to see any prospect of success in his intended appeal either.

6.In the premises it would be futile to extend time for what appears to me a hopeless appeal.  Accordingly I refuse his application for leave to appeal out of time, and dismiss his summons.

The applicant appeared in person