Re Anita

HCAL 66/2019

[2021] HKCFI 3085

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO  66 OF 2019

_____________

_____________

Before:  Deputy High Court Judge Suffiad in Chambers

Date of Decision: 27 October 2021

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

The application

1.The Applicant, by summons dated 4 August 2021 applies for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Court”) given on 15 July 2021 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board.  By its decision the Board had dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration regarding the Applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.The 14 day period for the Applicant to file her appeal against the decision of the Court ended on 29 July 2021 and hence she was some 6 days late with her intended appeal.

3.In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, a 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 extension of time were granted.

4.In the Applicant’s case, the delay was of 6 days.  In her affirmation in support of her summons, the Applicant merely stated that she did not get the judgment of the Court in time, but without further elaboration.

5.The court record shows that the decision of the Court was sent to the Applicant on the same day that decision of the Court was made to the address she had provided to the court without being returned through undelivered post.

6.As for prospect of the intended appeal, the Applicant has not put forward any proper or valid draft or proposed grounds of appeal.  Nor has the Applicant alluded to any particulars of any error in the decision of the Court or why it can be said that the decision of the Court was unfair or unreasonable.  All that the Applicant said in her summons was that she was not satisfied.  Presumably that meant she was not satisfied with the decision of the Court.

7.In Re Adumekwe Rowland Ejike [2019] HKCA 702, the Court of Appeal held:

“19. The prospect of success of the intended appeal is important: the court will not grant extension for a hopeless appeal to be pursued, see Re Rahman Wasif [2019] HKCA 299 at [13]; Re Kpamou Gbotoi Bernard [2019] HKCA 168; and Re Irshad Muhammad [2018]HKCA 864 at [16].”

8.This being an application to extend the time for appealing against the decision of the Court, it is for the Applicant to show that there is some matter which can reasonably be argued on appeal.  This she has not done.

9.In the premises and for the reasons given, it would be futile to extend time for what would appear to be a hopeless appeal.  Accordingly, I refuse the Applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of the Court and dismiss the summons.

The applicant is unrepresented