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

Read the full judgment text of HCAL 1735/2019 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 18 June 2024.

1. The applicant was an illegal immigrant by staying in Hong Kong without permission and he lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”).  The Director rejected his application and he appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”).  Having considered his evidence, the Board, by its Decision (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

Cites 1 case

Case No.HCAL 1735/2019[2024] HKCFI 1487
Court
High Court CFI
Date18 Jun 2024
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCAL 1735/2019

[2024] HKCFI 1487

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST No. 1735 of 2019

BETWEEN    
  Sutikno 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 documents only;          or
    consideration of documents and Applicant being absent in open court;

Order by Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung:

 Leave to apply for Judicial Review be dismissed.

1.The applicant was an illegal immigrant by staying in Hong Kong without permission and he lodged a non-refoulement claim with the Director of Immigration (“the Director”).  The Director rejected his application and he appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”).  Having considered his evidence, the Board, by its Decision (“the Board’s Decision”), rejected his appeal and affirmed the Director’s Decision.

2.The applicant filed Form 86 on 24 June 2019 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

3.By letter dated 24 May 2024, the Immigration Department informed this Court that according to the record, the applicant had already passed away.  The Court will take judicial notice that the contents of this letter is true.

4.The Court of Appeal in AW v Director of Immigration and William Lam CACV 63 of 2015, Hon Lam VP, Kwan and Poon JJA, 3 November 2015 held:

“67. It is well established that the court may exercise discretion not to grant a remedy on judicial review if it would serve no practical purpose, where it may have become otiose or pointless to grant a remedy because the relevant detriment to the applicant has been removed (De Smith’s Judicial Review (7th ed) at §§18-054 to 18-056; Judicial Review by Supperstone, Goudie and Walker (5th ed) at §18.18.1)….”

5.Since the applicant has passed away, this application will serve no practical purpose.  The Court should not grant a remedy on judicial review of the Board’s Decision.

6.There is nothing outstanding other than this application.

7.The Court should dismiss the application.

8.The application is therefore dismissed.

Dated the 18th day of June 2024

  (M.O. WONG)(Ms)
  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 the Applicant’s 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 18/6/2024

Sutikno

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 18/6/2024
 
Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office
Putative Respondent’s ref. no.:
USM 14410/18/11/253/I1547

Director of Immigration
Putative Interested Party’s ref. no.:
QA T/C 4422/18 (Formerly RBCZ 13029/16);
PSO 02022/IDO/IDO/5
 
Department of Justice,
Senior Assistant Law Officer
(Civil Law)
(Civil Litigation Unit 2)


Form CALL-1