MUHAMMAD RIAZ KHAN v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND ANOTHER

MUHAMMAD RIAZ KHAN v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND ANOTHER

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed the reasonable arguability test: there was no substantial new evidence or other considerations that could reasonably cause the Court of Appeal to regard the conviction as unsafe; the Solicitor General and Secretary for Security had...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
MUHAMMAD RIAZ KHAN v. CHIEF EXECUTIVE AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: Muhammad Riaz Khan; 1st Putative Respondent: Chief Executive; 2nd Putative Respondent: Chief Secretary for Administration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
16 February 2016
Case Number
HCAL121/2015
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused (decision on Merits and Delay)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Section 83 P Referral, Reverse Onus/presumption, Extension of Time/delay, Reasonable Arguability Test, Mandamus, Disclosure
Source Language
en
Criminal Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Judicial Review Section 83 P Referral Reverse Onus/presumption Extension of Time/delay Reasonable Arguability Test +2 more

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Muhammad Riaz Khan

Applicant

Chief Executive

1st Putative Respondent

Chief Secretary for Administration

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (leave Application) / Leave Application Refused (decision on Merits and Delay)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Chief Executive/Secretary's refusal to refer the conviction under section 83P of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance was lawful or vitiated by failure to take into account relevant considerations or taking into account irrelevant considerations
  2. 2 Whether the applicant raised substantial new evidence or other considerations capable of causing the Court of Appeal to regard the conviction as unsafe (the Hickey test)
  3. 3 Whether the applicant met the reasonable arguability (realistic prospect) threshold for leave to apply for judicial review

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed the reasonable arguability test: there was no substantial new evidence or other considerations that could reasonably cause the Court of Appeal to regard the conviction as unsafe; the Solicitor General and Secretary for Security had adequately identified and considered the applicant's argument; the decision under s83P is discretionary and not for correctness review; the application was also unreasonably delayed so no extension was warranted.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Application for leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • No extension of time granted for the out of time application