RE MASIH MAIKAL

HCAL 757/2017

[2018] HKCFI 2427

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 757 OF 2017

______________

______________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

1.  On 8 August 2018 Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock 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 24 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 22 August 2018, and hence he was late by just over one month.

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 about one month may not be said to be excessive, for which he explained in his supporting affirmation of the same date that he was not aware of the rule and that he did not have the means to seek legal advice, but ignorance of the law cannot be accepted as a valid explanation for delay.

5.  To see whether there is good reason to extend time it is necessary to consider the prospect of the intended appeal by referring to the proposed ground of appeal, but which the applicant did not provide any, or for that matter any particulars as to any error in the decision or why it was unreasonable or unfair, without 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.  Accordingly I refuse his application for leave to appeal out of time, and dismiss his summons.