Re Md Monju Sheikh

HCAL 825/2017

[2019] HKCFI 417

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 825 OF 2017

______________

______________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

1.On 20 July 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 none of the grounds put forward by him as reasonably arguable or with any prospect of success in his intended application.

2.The applicant now by a summons issued on 18 December 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 expired on 3 September 2018 after taking into account of the Court’s summer vacation, and hence he was late by 3 ½ 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 3 ½ months must be regarded as a substantial one, for which he explained in his supporting affirmation of the same date that he forgot to come to court, and at the hearing of his summons he clarified that after he was refused leave to apply for judicial review, he was prepared to be repatriated, but later when he heard that his problems back home were still unresolved, he therefore changed his mind and decided to appeal against the court’s decision but by then he was already out of time.  I do not accept it is a valid reason for his delay.

5.Nor did he provide any draft or proposed ground for his appeal,or any particulars as to any error in the decision or why it was unreasonable or unfair, and at the hearing he merely repeated his claim as before and stated that he just wants to remain in Hong Kong longer until his problems back home are resolved.  As such I do not 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.  I therefore refuse his application for leave to appeal out of time, and dismiss his summons accordingly.

The applicant was not represented and did not appear