Read the full judgment text of CACV 299/2019 and CAMP 301/2019 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 4 June 2020 before Hon Lam VP and Pang JA.
Administrative law – judicial review – non-refoulement claim – torture claim – extension of time for appeal – Court of Appeal – applicant from Pakistan – fear of harm from PPP supporters after accidentally shooting and fracturing the knee of a PPP supporter named Zaka – claim rejected by Director of Immigration and Torture Claims Appeal Board on grounds of no real persecution, torture, BOR 2 or BOR 3 risk, availability of state protection, and viability of internal relocation – refusal of leave to apply for judicial review by Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam – whether time should be extended to appeal refusal of leave for judicial review – four-factor test comprising length of delay, reasons for delay, prospect of success, and prejudice – whether Board and Director failed in their duty of make sufficient inquiries into country of origin conditions under Secretary for Security v Sakthevel Prabakar (2004) 7 HKCFAR 187 – whether they failed to take into account relevant considerations – delay of more than 12 months very substantial and excessive – applicant unable to provide dates or particulars of any change in circumstances in Pakistan – no satisfactory explanation for the long delay – applicant failed to provide any specific details to support a public law ground – general assertions insufficient to raise viable grounds of appeal – extension of time refused as it would be futile to extend time for a hopeless appeal – appeal struck out and dismissed – no oral reconsideration permitted under Order 59, rule 2A(8) of the Rules of the High Court (Cap 4A).
Legal issues: Extension of time to appeal refusal of leave for judicial review · Whether the Board and Director failed in their duty of inquiry under Sakthevel Prabakar · Whether the Board and Director failed to take into account relevant considerations
Outcome: Summons dismissed; appeal in CACV 299/2019 struck out and dismissed as incompetent.
Cited by 164 cases · Cites 16 cases