ASIF FAROOQ v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

HCAL 5/2018

[2020] HKCFI 2053

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 5 OF 2018

___________________

___________________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

Introduction

1.  This is an application dated 29 July 2020 to appeal my decision of 9 June 2020 refusing leave to apply for judicial review.  The applicant had 14 days in which to apply to appeal that decision.  He did not do so.  He now requires leave to extend time to appeal against that order.  The applicant did attend court for the hearing.  He was assisted by a Punjabi interpreter.

Procedural Background

2.  The applicant is a claimant under Article 3 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.  He originally made a claim under the UNHCR on 28 March 2006.  On 5 May 2009, he lodged a torture claim.  In 2012 he withdrew that claim stating he wished to return to Pakistan but on 1 June 2016 he lodged a non-refoulement claim form.  He was interviewed by the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) on 28 June and 8 August 2016.  The Director dismissed his claim under all heads, by Notice of Decision on 22 August 2016.  He appealed that Decision to the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the TCAB”).  The adjudicator of the TCAB, Mr Evan Ruth (“the Adjudicator”), heard him on 10 October 2017.  The Adjudicator refused his appeal on 5 December 2017.

3.  The applicant filed a notice of application on a Form 86 seeking leave to apply for judicial review on 2 January 2018 and did not request an oral hearing.  The matter was therefore considered on the papers.  His application for leave to apply for judicial review was refused on 9 June 2020.  He had 14 days from that date to appeal that decision which would have expired on 23 June 2020.  By way of summons dated 29 July 2020, he seeks leave to appeal out of time.

4.  An applicant does not require leave to appeal against a CFI judge’s refusal to grant leave to apply for judicial review (Order 59, rule 21(1)(g)).  The applicant may appeal as of right.  However, an applicant who wishes to appeal against a CFI judge’s refusal to grant leave to apply for judicial review, which is an interlocutory order, has to observe the time limits for appeal under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court which allows 14 days.  Where the applicant is out of time to appeal against a judge’s refusal to grant leave to apply for judicial review, an extension of time may be granted by a judge of the Court of First Instance under Order 59, rule 2B(6).  The Court is required to consider (1) the length of the delay; (2) the reasons for the delay; (3) the prospect of success in the intended appeal; and (4) the prejudice to the respondent if an extension of time were granted[1].

5.  In order to obtain that leave, an application must be made promptly and it must be supported by an affirmation or affidavit deposing to any facts relied upon by the applicant and giving a full account of and explanation for the whole of the delay since time expired.

6.  Whilst the granting of an extension of time is entirely within the discretion of the Court, the applicant is required to explain the reasons for his delay as this forms part of the consideration of whether there is good reason to allow an extension of time.  The applicant stated that he did not receive the Form CALL-1 or Order within a reasonable period of time allowing him to appeal within the time frame.  I note this is similar wording and in a similar handwriting to other applications I have received.  He gives no other reason within his affirmation as to why that was the case.  The court file suggests that it was properly served upon the address given at that time, which is the same address the applicant uses today.  The documents have been returned to the High Court as unclaimed and it is therefore presumed that they reached their destination.  It is the duty of a litigant to give the Court an address to which correspondence or notice can come to his attention in a timely manner[2]. That includes the ability to receive letters properly at the address given.  The consequences of any delay arising from failing to do so will fall upon the litigant.[3]

7.  Even if the Court did accept that the explanation given for non‑receipt and the delay is a reasonable one (which it does not), the Court is required to examine whether there is any merit in the applicant’s appeal[4]. Whether there is any such merit will depend upon well‑established legal principles[5] including the fact that the Court in judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal on the merits of the underlying claim.  As to his appeal the applicant submits that he wishes the Court of Appeal to review the merits of his case without more.  The question for the Court is whether these submissions truly seek to review the exercise of a judicial function and in so doing indicate a reasonable prospect of success in the intended appeal[6].

8.  As the role of the Court in judicial review is not to provide a further avenue of appeal from the decisions of the Director and the Adjudicator, it follows that an appeal from this Court should not be founded upon any attempt to appeal those same decisions.  It is an appeal from the decision of this Court and the applicant should look to draft grounds of appeal on that basis.  This was explained in some detail to the applicant when he appeared.

Conclusion

9.  The applicant has now been in Hong Kong since 2001. He has been interacting with various government agencies since that date.  The explanation he has offered to this Court, as to why he did not receive the Order is not acceptable.

10.  In any event, I have considered his underlying application.  It has no merit as explained in the initial refusal of leave.  There were voluminous grounds of review without supporting particulars.  They also were copied from grounds of review submitted by other applicants.  Nothing is gained from so doing.  They were without merit.  In addition, there was no complaint before the Court as to the decision to refuse leave.  The applicant merely wishes the Court of Appeal to consider his situation afresh.  Having considered the length of delay, reason for the delay and underlying merits of his application, it would not be in the interest of justice to grant an extension of time in all the circumstances of this case.

11.  The applicant’s summons dated 29 July 2020 be dismissed.