Re Mehmood Aqsad

HCAL 246/2017

[2018] HKCFI 2423

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 246 OF 2017

______________

______________

Before: Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan in Chambers

Date of Hearing: 25 October 2018

Date of Decision: 29 November 2018

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

1.On 16 July 2018 Deputy High Court Judge Lam refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board in dismissing his appeal/petition regarding his non-refoulement claim upon finding no ground had been put forward by him for his application, nor was there any reasonably arguable ground or with any prospect of success in his intended application.

2.The applicant now by a summons issued on 5 October 2018 seeks 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 30 July 2018, and hence he was late by more than two months with his intended appeal.

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 two months cannot be regarded as insignificant, for which he did not provide any explanation in his supporting affirmation of the same date, and only at the hearing of his summons before me did he simply claim to have not received the decision from the Court without providing any further particulars, but as the record shows that the decision with a covering letter was posted by the Court on thesame date to his reported address which he confirmed at the hearing as correct, I am not satisfied that he has given any valid explanation for his delay.

5.More importantly, he did not provide any draft or proposed ground for his appeal either, or any particulars as to any error in the decision or why he considered it unfair or unreasonable, without which I am unable to see any prospect of success in his intended appeal.

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