Re Roka Thir Bahadur

HCAL 773/2018

[2020] HKCFI 2304

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 773 OF 2018  

_____________

_____________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.On 20 January 2020 I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) or the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) in rejecting/dismissing his non-refoulement claim upon finding none of the grounds put forward by him reasonably arguable for his intended challenge, that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the process before the Director or the Board or in their decisions, and that there was no reasonable prospect of success in his intended application.

2.The Applicant now by a summons issued on 16 March 2020 seeks extension of time to appeal against that decision, as the 14-day period for him to file his appeal under Order 53 rule 3(4) of the Rules of High Court, Cap 4A ended on 3 February 2020, and hence he was late by 6 weeks 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 shall have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (iv) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted: see Re MK HCMP 2609/2016, 10 January 2017; Chu On Fong Winter v The Appeal Panel (Housing) HCMP 982/2017, 20 July 2017; Islam Raja Rais v Director of Immigration HCMP 881/2017, 26 June 2017; Re Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; and Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346.

4.In the Applicant’s case, a delay of 6 weeks must be considered as significant, for which he explained at the hearing of his summons that he was unable to file his appeal during the general adjournment of legal proceedings at that time due to the Covid-19 pandemic, and that it was not until sometime in mid-March 2020 that he was able to do so but by then he was already out of time with his appeal.

5.Indeed, the deadline for the Applicant to file his appeal fell within the period of the general adjournment of proceedings (“GAP”) announced by the Judiciary on 29 January 2020, and with the reduced operations of the High Court Registry during GAP which ended only on 3 May 2020, I accept his explanation for the delay with his appeal, and am satisfied that there are justifications to extend time for him to file his appeal.  

6.In the premises, and accordingly I grant the Applicant an extension of time to file his appeal within 14 days of this order.

The applicant appeared in person