RE HOSSAIN MD SUMON

HCAL 551/2017

[2018] HKCFI 2424

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 551 OF 2017

______________

______________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

1.  On 7 June 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 10 August 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 21 June 2018, and hence he was late by more than one and a half month with his application.

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 one and a half month cannot be said to be insignificant.  In his supporting affirmation of the same date he explained that he was not aware of the rule regarding the 14-day period for lodging of appeal, and at the hearing of his summons before me he further asserted that he did not receive the decision as he was then being detained by the Immigration Department, but when it was revealed that it was only on 19 June 2018 when he was detained while the decision was sent to his last known reported address almost two weeks earlier on 7 June 2018, he was unable to explain why he did not receive the decision.  In the circumstances I am not satisfied that he has provided any valid or acceptable explanation for his delay.

5.  More importantly, he did not provide any draft or proposed ground for his appeal, or any particulars as to any error in the decision or whyit was unreasonable or unfair notwithstanding his assertion in his affirmation that he has a good ground of appeal.  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.