RE AS

RE AS

Leave refused because the Applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness: the Putative Respondent lawfully and reasonably considered relevant COI, applied the correct standard of proof, had no duty to obtain psychiatric reports on the evidence, properly assessed state protection (finding it available), and the case did not enjoy a realistic prospect of success; extension of time was also refused.

Citation
[2018] HKCFI 543
Parties
Putative Respondent: Kevin Edward Ball; Interested Party: Director of Immigration
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
19 March 2018
Case Number
HCAL91/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review (non Refoulement/torture Claim) / Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (ex‑parte Application and Oral Hearing)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; extension of time refused; no other relief; no order as to costs.
Legal Topics
Non‑refoulement, Torture (cat Article 3), Procedural Fairness, Judicial Review Leave, Wednesbury Unreasonableness, State Protection/extended Protection
Source Language
EN
Administrative Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Constitutional Law Non‑refoulement Torture (cat Article 3) Procedural Fairness Judicial Review Leave +2 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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kevin Edward Ball

Putative Respondent

Director of Immigration

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review (non Refoulement/torture Claim) / Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (ex‑parte Application and Oral Hearing)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Putative Respondent committed error of law
  2. 2 Whether the procedures adopted met the required standard of fairness (COI consideration, legal representation, psychiatric reports)
  3. 3 Whether the substantive decision was irrational under the enhanced Wednesbury test

Ratio Decidendi

Leave refused because the Applicant failed to demonstrate any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness: the Putative Respondent lawfully and reasonably considered relevant COI, applied the correct standard of proof, had no duty to obtain psychiatric reports on the evidence, properly assessed state protection (finding it available), and the case did not enjoy a realistic prospect of success; extension of time was also refused.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; extension of time refused; no other relief; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review denied
  • Extension of time to file application denied