RE AYUB NAVEED

HCAL 540/2017

[2018] HKCFI 2434

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CONSTITUTIONAL AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW LIST

NO 540 OF 2017

______________

______________

___________________

D E C I S I O N

___________________

1.  On 15 June 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-refoulementclaim upon finding no grounds had been put forward by him for his intended challenge, nor could I find any grounds which may be reasonably arguable or with any prospect of success in his intended application.

2.  The applicant now by a summons issued on 13 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 29 June 2018, and hence he was late by about 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 about one and a half month cannot be said to be insignificant, and in his supporting affirmation of the same date he explained that he did not know what to do and could not afford legal advice, and it was until he was advised by his friends to appeal that he issued his application.  Ignorance of the law of course cannot be accepted as a valid explanation, and hence I do not accept that he has provided any good reason for his delay.

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 orunfair, and 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.