Read the full judgment text of FAMV 000018/2003 on BabelCite. This FAMV judgment was delivered on 3 October 2003 before Mr Justice Bokhary PJ, Mr Justice Chan PJ and Mr Justice Ribeiro PJ.
Public law – leave to appeal – academic appeal – great public interest – United Nations Convention Against Torture – domestic duties – duty to investigate torture claims – UNHCR conclusions – deportation – refugee – Secretary for Security – Court of Final Appeal – The respondent, a refugee from Sri Lanka, was subject to a deportation order. The UNHCR initially declined to recognize him as a refugee but later did so. The Secretary for Security declined to rescind the order based on the respondent's criminal conviction. The Court of Appeal quashed the decision. The Secretary sought leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The Court of Final Appeal considered whether to grant leave despite the appeal being academic as the respondent had left for Canada. The court held that the questions raised – whether the UN Convention Against Torture imposes domestic duties and whether the Secretary has a duty to investigate torture claims – were reasonably arguable and of great public importance, justifying leave to appeal even if academic. Leave granted on condition that the Secretary pays the respondent's costs if legal aid is not granted.
Legal issues: Whether UN Convention Against Torture imposes domestic duties · Duty to investigate torture claims before deportation
Outcome: Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal granted on condition that the Secretary for Security pays the respondent's costs of the appeal if the respondent is not granted legal aid.