HARPREET SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

HCAL 587/2024

[2024] HKCFI 3035

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 587 OF 2024

_____________

_____________

_____________

D E C I S I O N

_____________

1.  On 8 August 2024 I refused to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of a decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in rejecting/dismissing his non-refoulement claim upon finding that none of the grounds put forward by him reasonably arguable for his intended challenge, that there was no error of law or procedural unfairness in the process before the Director of Immigration (“Director”) or the Board or in their decisions, and that there was no reasonable prospect of success in his intended application.

2.  The Applicant now by a summons issued on 12 September 2024 seeks extension of time to appeal against that decision, as the 14-day period after the decision within which to file his appeal under Order 53 Rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A expired on 22 August 2024, and hence he would have been some 3 weeks late with his intended appeal.

3.  In considering whether to extend time for appealing against a decision refusing leave to apply for judicial review, the Court shall have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reason for the delay; (iii) the prospect of the intended appeal; and (iv) the prejudice to the respondent if extension of time were granted: see Re MK HCMP 2609/2016, 10 January 2017; Chu On Fong Winter v The Appeal Panel (Housing) HCMP 982/2017, 20 July 2017; Islam Raja Rais v Director of Immigration HCMP 881/2017, 26 June 2017; Re Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226; and Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346.

4.  In the Applicant’s case, a delay of 3 weeks must be considered as substantial and inordinate, for which he explained at the hearing of his summons that he was then, and still is, being detained at Tai Tam Gap Correctional Institution, and as he is not educated and without legal representation that he had had to seek help from some friend with his intended appeal.

5.  The court record shows that the decision was sent on the same day of 8 August 2024 to the Applicant’s detention at Tai Tam Gap Correctional Institution without being returned through undelivered post, but it was then within the month of August which is the Court’s summer vacation when time ceases to run, and hence when he actually intended to file his appeal on 12 September 2024, he was in fact not out of time, and it was the mistake of the Registry to require him to seek extension of time for the filing of his appeal.

6.  By now of course the Applicant would be out of time with his intended appeal, but for the given reasons I hereby extend time for him to do so within 14 days of the receipt of this decision.