Read the full judgment text of CACV 341/2021 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 7 October 2021 before Hon G Lam JA and Coleman J.
Judicial review – non-refoulement claim – leave to apply for judicial review – appeal from refusal of leave – procedural unfairness – oral hearing – rule in Browne v Dunn – high standard of fairness – whether Board required to put determinative credibility concerns to claimant – Bangladesh national – BNP member – alleged threats and false criminal charges from Awami League supporters – inconsistency between original account of January 2014 protest and later-produced documents concerning a separate April 2014 incident – applicant attended oral hearing but declined to continue giving evidence and refused adjournment – whether Board's adverse credibility findings were procedurally unfair – Court of Appeal principles governing appeals from refusal of leave – enhanced standard of scrutiny in non-refoulement cases – whether rule in Browne v Dunn applies by analogy to Board hearings – Canadian jurisprudence applying Browne v Dunn to refugee proceedings – MS v Torture Claims Appeal Board on fairness in alerting claimant to adverse inferences – section 8 of Schedule 1A to Immigration Ordinance (Cap 115) permitting determination without oral hearing – applicant acting in person – whether reasonably arguable case of procedural unfairness – Deputy Judge failed to take into account reasonable argument of procedural unfairness – appeal allowed – leave to apply for judicial review granted on ground that Board's decision may have been tainted by procedural unfairness or lack of high standard of fairness.
Legal issues: Whether procedural unfairness arose in the Board hearing when the applicant declined to continue giving oral evidence · Whether the rule in Browne v Dunn applies by analogy in non-refoulement claim hearings before the Torture Claims Appeal Board · Whether the Deputy Judge erred in refusing leave to apply for judicial review
Outcome: Appeal allowed; leave to apply for judicial review granted on the ground that the Board's decision may have been tainted by procedural unfairness or lack of the high standard of fairness to which the applicant was entitled.
Cited by 37 cases · Cites 11 cases