MS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

MS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER [Decision on Leave Application]

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board and Director made lawful, reasoned determinations: the applicant's conduct and failure to give oral evidence, together with inconsistent and incomplete medical evidence, legitimately undermined credibility under s37ZD; the refusal to adjourn and absence of advice to give evidence were within the Board's procedural discretion given legal representation; there was no reasonable prospect of success for judicial review.

Citation
[2019] HKCFI 2708
Parties
Applicant: Applicant; Putative 1st Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board; Putative 2nd Respondent: Ian Candy qua Adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
1 November 2019
Case Number
HCAL208/2019
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (judicial Review) Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Torture Protection, Credibility Assessment, Adjournment, Procedural Fairness, Internal Relocation, Unified Screening Mechanism, Leave to Apply for Judicial Review
Source Language
EN
Constitutional Law Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Refugee Law Asylum Law Non‑refoulement Torture Protection +6 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 7 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Applicant

Applicant

Torture Claims Appeal Board

Putative 1st Respondent

Ian Candy qua Adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office

Putative 2nd Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application (judicial Review) Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Board erred in law by using a general credibility finding to preclude separate factual findings
  2. 2 Whether the Board failed to make adequate factual findings and give reasons (alleged illegality)
  3. 3 Whether the Board acted unfairly in refusing an adjournment on medical grounds

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Board and Director made lawful, reasoned determinations: the applicant's conduct and failure to give oral evidence, together with inconsistent and incomplete medical evidence, legitimately undermined credibility under s37ZD; the refusal to adjourn and absence of advice to give evidence were within the Board's procedural discretion given legal representation; there was no reasonable prospect of success for judicial review.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application dismissed