RE AHMED SAMIR AND OTHERS

HCAL 919/2017

[2019] HKCFI 1067

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 919 OF 2017

______________

______________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

1.  On 25 January 2019 I refused to grant leave to the applicants to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) in dismissing their appeal/petition regarding their non- refoulement claim upon finding none of the grounds put forward by them as reasonably arguable or with any prospect of success in their intended application.

2.  The applicants now by a summons issued on 11 March 2019 seek leave to appeal against that decision out of time, as the 14-day period for them to lodge their appeal under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A ended on 8 February 2019, and hence they were late by more than one month.

3.  In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the Court will have regard to (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted.

4.  In the applicants’ case a delay of more than one month must be regarded as significant or substantial, for which no explanation was given in their supporting affirmation of the same date, and at the hearing the 1^st applicant explained that he was not aware of the law requiring the filing of appeal within 14 days, and as they needed to find someone to help them to prepare the appeal documents and hence the delay.  Ignorance of the law in these circumstances cannot of course be accepted as valid reason for such delay, and as such I do not accept that the applicants have provided any good reason for their delay.

5.  Nor did the applicants provide any draft or proposed ground for their appeal, or any particulars as to any error in the decision or why it was unreasonable or unfair, other than that they were not satisfied with the decision and that their lives would still be in danger in India, and asked that their claim be reconsidered.  In the absence of any arguable ground of appeal,I am unable to see any prospect of success in their intended appeal.

6.  In the premises it would be futile to extend time for what appears to me a hopeless appeal.  Accordingly I refuse their application for leave to appeal out of time, and dismiss their summons.