MOHAMMAD PALASH v. WILLIAM LAM, ESQ AND ANOTHER

MOHAMMAD PALASH v. WILLIAM LAM, ESQ AND ANOTHER

Leave refused because applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable: COI did not show real risk of torture/CIDTP or denial of fair trial of the minimum severity required, applicant was a fugitive from justice, claimant failed to produce expert evidence on Bangladeshi law to show no retrial or lack of notice, and the TCAB decision met standards of law and procedural fairness and was not Wednesbury unreasonable.

Citation
MOHAMMAD PALASH v. WILLIAM LAM, ESQ AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: Mohammad Palash; Putative Respondent: WILLIAM LAM, ESQ; Putative Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
18 December 2017
Case Number
HCAL120/2017
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture/cidtp, Trial in Absentia, Fair Trial Rights, Prison Conditions, Judicial Review Leave, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, Subsequent Claims
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Constitutional Law Administrative Law Human Rights Criminal Law Refugee Law Non Refoulement Torture/cidtp +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 5 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mohammad Palash

Applicant

WILLIAM LAM, ESQ

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Putative Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review / Leave Application Refused

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicant faces real risk of torture or CIDTP if returned to Bangladesh
  2. 2 Whether conviction in absentia and lack of retrial opportunities constitute flagrant denial of justice violating HKBOR/ICCPR
  3. 3 Whether life imprisonment/prison conditions in Bangladesh amount to CIDTP

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because applicant's grounds were not reasonably arguable: COI did not show real risk of torture/CIDTP or denial of fair trial of the minimum severity required, applicant was a fugitive from justice, claimant failed to produce expert evidence on Bangladeshi law to show no retrial or lack of notice, and the TCAB decision met standards of law and procedural fairness and was not Wednesbury unreasonable.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused.