Mohammad Farooq v. The Permanent Secretary for Security and Another

HCAL 374/2022

[2023] HKCFI 710

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST NO 374 OF 2022

________________________

________________________

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

1.In May 2022, the Applicant sought leave to apply for judicial review of a decision dated 10 June 2020 and made by the Permanent Secretary for Security, refusing to suspend or rescind a deportation order that had been made against him as early as 2016. The hearing of that application took place on 3 August 2022.

2.But before that hearing, the Applicant had not availed himself of the permission granted to file a reply to the initial response on behalf of the Respondents, nor had he filed any written submissions. At the hearing itself, the Applicant did not appear even though the court spent time waiting for him. Nevertheless, I dealt with the application on its merits. I held that it had no merit.

3.First, the delay in bringing the application for leave to apply for judicial review was significant. It was a delay of almost two years from the date of the decision the subject of challenge, but the Applicant’s points were really directed at the deportation order, which was made more than five years before the challenge in the proceedings was raised. That delay was wholly unexplained and, linked to the lack of merit in the points raised, was fatal. I also identified in my decision the lack of merit in the points raised.

4.Now, by summons dated 8 November 2022, the Applicant seeks leave to appeal from my order of 3 August 2022, out of time. In his submissions to me this morning, he has again essentially focused on why he says he should not be deported or why his family circumstances identify why he would prefer to remain in Hong Kong. With respect, those are not matters relevant to the current application. When I asked the Applicant for any explanation for the delay, he again referred to the fact that his wife is in Hong Kong and said that he did not know he had to do it. Essentially, the submission was for me not to deport him, but that is not what I am doing.

5.On the basis of the unexplained delay and in light of what seems to me to be the lack of merit that there would be in any appeal in any event, I am not prepared to grant the Applicant the indulgence of extending time for him to launch any intended appeal.

6.Therefore, the application is dismissed, but I make no order as to costs.

The applicant, acting in person