MD RAHMAT ULLAH v. P. K. M. LONGLEY, ESQ.

HCAL 32/2016

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 32 OF 2016

________________________

________________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1.  This is an application for leave to apply for judicial review.  The applicant requested for an oral hearing and so the court conducts the present hearing as requested.

2.  However, the applicant does not turn up at the hearing.  In such circumstances, the application for leave is refused for want of prosecution.

3.  In any event, if the court has to consider the merits of the application, I have perused the decision made by the adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board.  The reasoning given by the adjudicator cannot be faulted, and so there is no chance that the applicant can persuade the court to disturb the decision of the adjudicator.

4.  I have also considered the documents lodged by the applicant in support of the present application.  Most of the materials therein are just a repetition of the arguments placed before the adjudicator.  They add nothing new to the applicant’s claim. Hence, even if I have to consider the merits of the application, I will still refuse the application.

5.  The application for leave to apply for judicial review is therefore dismissed.