RE PAKHAR RAM

HCAL 637/2017

[2018] HKCFI 2425

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 637 OF 2017

______________

______________

___________________

D E C I S I O N

___________________

1.  On 5 July 2018 Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock refused togrant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of theTorture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) in dismissing his appeal/‌petition regarding his non-refoulement claim upon finding none of the grounds put forward by him as reasonably arguable or with any prospect of success in his intended application.

2.  The applicant now by a summons issued on 14 September 2018 seeks leave to appeal against that decision out of time, as the 14-day period for him to lodge his appeal under Order 53, rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A ended on 19 July 2018, and hence he was late by almost two months.

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 applicant’s case the decision was sent by the Court with a covering letter on the same date of 5 July 2018 to his last known reported address, hence a delay of almost two months cannot be said to be insubstantial, and in his supporting affirmation of the same date he explained that he never received the decision from the Court, and at the hearing of his summons he further clarified that it was only much later when he attended atthe Shatin Court to report on his recognizance that he was told of the decision, but then he was immediately detained by the Immigration Department and was not able to make his application until later in September 2018 when he issued the summons now before me, but as he was all along residing at the same address to which the decision was posted, he was unable to offer any explanation as to why he did not receive the decision.

5.  Nor did he provide any draft or proposed ground for his appeal,or any particulars as to any error in the decision or why it was unreasonable or unfair, and in the absence of any reasonably arguable ground I am unable to see any prospect of success in his intended appeal.

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