Idrees Shoukat v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

Case No.HCAL 2291/2018[2021] HKCFI 1218

Court

High Court CFI

Date—

Judge—

Case Document

100%Judiciary

HCAL 2291/2018

[2021] HKCFI 1218

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 2291 of 2018

BETWEEN

	Idrees Shoukat	Applicant
	and
	Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office	Putative Respondent
	and
	Director of Immigration	Putative Interested Party

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review

NOTIFICATION of the Judge’s decision (Ord. 53 r. 3)

Following;

consideration of the documents only; or

consideration of the documents and oral submissions by the Applicant in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge To:

1. The Order of Deputy High Court Judge To dated 8 April 2021 was set aside; and

2. Leave to apply for Judicial Review was withdrawn.

Observations for the Applicant:

Introduction

1.The Applicant is a Pakistani national. He entered Hong Kong illegally on 8 November 2008 and was arrested by the police on 13 November 2008. On 16 November 2008, he made a ‘torture claim’ to the Director of Immigration (the “Director”). His application was refused by the Director. He appealed. In due course, his appeal was heard by the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (the “Board”). On 30 April 2018, the Board dismissed his appeal (the “Decision”). On 22 October 2018, he filed an application for leave to apply for judicial review against the Decision of the Board.

2. Under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, where an application for leave to apply for judicial review is refused by a judge, the applicant may appeal against the judge’s order to the Court of Appeal within 14 days after such order. By 14 May 2018, the time to appeal has expired. The application for leave to appeal is two months and three weeks out of time.

3.In his affirmation filed in support of his application, the Applicant said he disagreed with the Decision and that his life will be in danger if returned to Pakistan because of a land dispute. He gave no reason for the delay in making the leave application.

4.At the hearing on 8 April 2021, the court explained to him the requirement under Order 53 rule 3(4) and that his application was late by more than two months. Despite repeated attempts to solicit an explanation from him for the delay, he remained adamant that he filed his application within 8 days of receipt of the Decision and that his application was in time. He confirmed that the address he gave to the Board was correct. The court dismissed his application for it was not satisfied that he had a credible and valid reason for the delay and valid grounds to challenge the Decision.

5.On the following day, in the course of preparing its written reasons for decision the court discovered from the copy of letter issued by the Board that all along the Applicant had given an incomplete address to the Board and to the court in that the number of the building is missing. Giving him the benefit of the doubt, the Court reviewed and set aside its decision on 8 April 2021 and reconsidered his application. A further hearing was scheduled on 29 April 2021.

6.At the rescheduled hearing, the Court explained to the Applicant that it had set aside its decision, grant him extension of time and shall reconsider his application for leave. The Court invited him to make submission relating to his grounds for application. However, the Applicant said that he had been recently informed that the conditions at home is safe for him to return and he withdrew his application for leave to apply for judicial review. The Court was satisfied that his withdrawal was voluntarily made and granted him leave to withdraw his application.

Dated 29^th day of April 2021.

	(Sammi Wu)
	for Registrar, High Court

Where leave to apply has been granted, Applicants and their legal advisers are reminded of their obligation to reconsider the merits of their application in the light of the Respondent’s evidence

Notes for the Applicant: If leave has been granted, the Applicant or his solicitors must:
a) serve on the respondent and such interested parties as may be directed by the Court the order granting leave and any directions given within 14 days after the leave was granted(Order 53, rule 4A); b) issue the originating summons within 14 days after the grant of leave and serve it in accordance with Order 53, rule 5; and c) supply to every other party copies of every affidavit which the Applicant proposes to use at the hearing, including the affidavit in support of the application for leave (Order 53, rule 6(5)).		Sent to the Applicant on 29 April 2021 Idrees Shoukat Applicant’s ref. no: Nil.		Sent to the Putative Respondent / the Putative Respondent’s solicitors / such Putative Interested Parties as may be directed by the Court / the Putative Interested Parties’ solicitors on 29 April 2021 Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office Putative Respondent’s ref. no.: USM 8288/17/8/326/P1628 Director of Immigration Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.: QA T/C 1491/17 (formerly 2000960/14) Department of Justice, Senior Assistant Law Office (Civil Law) (Civil Litigation Unit 2)

Form CALL-1