Iqbal Muhammad and Others v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

CAMP 124/2024, [2025] HKCA 861

On an intended appeal from [2024] HKCFI 130

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 124 OF 2024

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 314 of 2019)

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Chu VP giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.On 1 September 2025, we handed down our judgment on the 1^st to 6^th applicants’ renewed application for leave to appeal out of time against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 30 May 2024, which dismissed their application for leave to apply for judicial review. 

2.We dismissed the application of the 1^st to 5^th applicants. In relation to the 6^th applicant (“A6”), we indicated at [59] that we are minded to allow his application, treat the hearing of the application as the hearing of the appeal, give directions for A6 to file a notice of appeal, and upon the filing of the notice of appeal to allow his appeal and his application for leave to judicially review the decision of the Torture claim Appeals Board (“the Board”).  For the reasons given in [60] of our judgment, we considered it appropriate to afford time for the Department of Justice, who represents the Director of Immigration (“the Director”), to consider our judgment and for A6’s legal representatives to discuss with the Department the further conduct of A6’s intended judicial review, including exploring the possibility of a disposal by consent. 

3.After discussions, A6 through his solicitors, and the Director, acting by the Department of Justice have reached agreement on the disposal of A6’s intended judicial review on terms as set out in a draft consent order supported by a Statement lodged with the Court on 11 September 2025.  The Director highlighted in the Statement (at [10])  that the agreement was on an exceptional and individual case basis and without prejudice to his stance and position in other similar matters and/or proceedings.

4.We have considered the Statement and the draft consent order.  We are satisfied that it is appropriate to make an order along the terms agreed between the parties and as set out in the draft consent order.

5.Accordingly, we make the following orders:

(1)  The 6^th applicant’s renewed application for extension of time to appeal the decision dated 9 January 2024 made in HCAL 314/2019 be allowed;

(2)  The 6^th applicant shall issue a notice of appeal within seven days from the date of this judgment.

(3)  Upon the filing of the notice of appeal by the 6^th applicant,

(a)  the 6^th applicant’s appeal be allowed;

(b)  the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 9 January 2024 refusing leave to the 6^th applicant to apply for judicial review be set aside;

(c)  leave to the 6^th applicant to apply for judicial review of the Torture Claims Appeal Board’s decision dated 16 November 2018;

(d)  the filing and service of the originating summons in HCAL 314/2019 by the 6^th applicant be dispensed with;

(e)  the Torture Claims Appeal Board’s decision dated 16 November 2018 in respect of the 6^th applicant be quashed and the 6^th applicant’s non-refoulement claim be remitted to the Board (differently constituted)  for fresh determination; and

(f)  there is no order as to costs, save that the applicant’s own costs be taxed in accordance with the Legal Aid Regulations.

(4)  There is no order as to the costs of these proceedings, including the joint application by the 6^th applicant and the Director of Immigration by the Statement lodged on 11 September 2025.

(5)  The 6^th applicant’s own costs be taxed under the Legal Aid Regulations.

Cedric & Co, assigned by the Director of Legal Aid, for the 6^th applicant.

Department of Justice for the Putative Interested Party