AW v. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND OTHERS

AW v. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND OTHERS

Extension of time refused because the applicant failed to act promptly and the stated reasons for delay were insufficient (legal aid delay and personal file not decisive), recent authorities did not justify delay, the USM/CIDTP process would address the substantive risk of ill-treatment making judicial review of the CAT decision purposeless, and granting leave would be detrimental to good administration; accordingly application for leave dismissed.

Citation
AW v. SECRETARY FOR SECURITY AND OTHERS
Parties
Applicant: AW; 1st Putative Respondent: Secretary for Security; 2nd Putative Respondent: Director of Immigration; 3rd Putative Respondent: The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region; 4th Putative Respondent: William Lam
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
26 January 2015
Case Number
HCAL91/2013
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Application for Leave and Extension of Time Under O.53 R.4(1)
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; extension of time refused.
Legal Topics
Extension of Time, Promptness Requirement, Detriment to Good Administration, Non Refoulement, CAT Claim, CIDTP Claim, Unified Screening Mechanism, Anonymity Order, Oral Hearing
Source Language
EN
Constitutional and Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Refugee and Asylum Law Extension of Time Promptness Requirement Detriment to Good Administration Non Refoulement +5 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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

AW

Applicant

Secretary for Security

1st Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

2nd Putative Respondent

The Chief Executive of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region

3rd Putative Respondent

William Lam

4th Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave to Apply) / Application for Leave and Extension of Time Under O.53 R.4(1)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether to extend time beyond the 3-month limit under O.53 r.4(1)
  2. 2 Whether applicant acted promptly and whether reasons for delay are good
  3. 3 Whether granting extension would be detrimental to good administration under s21K(6) High Court Ordinance

Ratio Decidendi

Extension of time refused because the applicant failed to act promptly and the stated reasons for delay were insufficient (legal aid delay and personal file not decisive), recent authorities did not justify delay, the USM/CIDTP process would address the substantive risk of ill-treatment making judicial review of the CAT decision purposeless, and granting leave would be detrimental to good administration; accordingly application for leave dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed; extension of time refused.

Orders

  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review dismissed
  • No order as to costs for these proceedings