RE BITTU SINGH

HCAL 201/2017

[2019] HKCFI 419

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 201 OF 2017

______________

______________

______________

D E C I S I O N

______________

1.  On 20 March 2018 I refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture 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 21 December 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 HighCourt, Cap 4A expired on 3 April 2018, and hence he was late by 8 ½ 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 a delay of more than 8 months must be regarded as substantial and inordinate.  In his supporting affirmation of the same date he explained that as he was unrepresented and was not aware of the rules and hence his intended appeal was not filed within the required time.  Ignorance of the law of course cannot be accepted as a good reason for any delay, let alone such a substantial one.

5.  Nor did he provide any draft or proposed ground for his intended appeal, or any particulars as to any error in the decision or why it was unreasonable or unfair, and as he failed to attend the hearing of his summons without any explanation other than some subsequent letters written in Punjabi without English translation, and did not avail himself to that opportunity to put forward his grounds, in the absence of which 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.  I therefore refuse his application for leave to appeal out of time, and dismiss his summons accordingly.