BRAR JASPREET SINGH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 371/2021

[2021] HKCA 1451

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 371 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 322 OF 2021)

________________________

________________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Hon Chow JA (giving the judgment of the Court):

1.  By a Notice of Decision dated 16 September 2014, the Director of Immigration rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim based on Torture Risk, BOR 3 Risk and Persecution Risk.

2.  On 3 February 2015, the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the Director’s decision (“the Board’s Decision”).

3.  On 26 July 2017, Lok J dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision in HCAL 37/2016 (“the 1^st JR Decision”).  The Applicant did not appeal the 1^st JR Decision.

4.  By a Notice of Further Decision dated 10 January 2017, the Director of Immigration rejected the applicant’s non-refoulement claim based on BOR 2 Risk.  The Applicant did not appeal the Director’s further decision.

5.  On 10 March 2021, the applicant filed another Form 86 to apply for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision, but did not put forward any ground to justify a second application to challenge the Board’s Decision.

6.  On 23 July 2021, Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan struck out and dismissed the applicant’s second application for leave to apply for judicial review on (inter alia) the ground of abuse of process (“the 2^nd JR Decision”).

7.  On 30 July 2021, the applicant filed the Notice of Appeal herein against the 2^nd JR Decision, stating that:

“The grounds will be provided at a later date.”

8.  In his submissions dated 13 August 2021, the applicant stated (inter alia) that he did not know that he had applied for judicial review before.  This allegation is plainly incorrect, because the applicant was legally represented by counsel and solicitors (assigned by the Director of Legal Aid) before Lok J on 18 July 2017 in his first application for judicial review.

9.  The applicant’s second application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision is patently an abuse of the court’s process (see Bepary Shahealom v Torture Claims Appeal Board [2018] HKCA 763), and was rightly struck out by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan.  The present appeal is unarguable.

10.  Accordingly, the Notice of Appeal dated 30 July 2021 is struck out, and the appeal is dismissed.

11.  Should the applicant make any further application for leave to apply for judicial review of the Board’s Decision, the Court of First Instance should consider making a restricted proceedings order against the applicant to prevent such abuse of process under the court’s inherent jurisdiction.