R v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

R v. DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOTHER

The applicant's systemic challenge to an Alleged Pre-Screening Policy is not reasonably arguable on the evidence; the only lawful policy is the statutory/administrative requirement of a written signification under s37X and the USM Notice; isolated incorrect decisions do not prove systemic defect; the applicant lacks...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2020] HKCFI 1308
Parties
Applicant: R; 1st Respondent: Director of Immigration; 2nd Respondent: Secretary for Security
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
22 June 2020
Case Number
HCAL152/2017
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Decision on Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (leave Dismissed)
Outcome
Application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of Decision (1) dismissed
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Unified Screening Mechanism, Torture Claims, Judicial Review, Standing, Procedural Threshold, Detention, Removal/expulsion, Compensation
Source Language
en
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Immigration Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Unified Screening Mechanism Torture Claims Judicial Review +5 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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R

Applicant

Director of Immigration

1st Respondent

Secretary for Security

2nd Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Decision on Application for Leave to Apply for Judicial Review (leave Dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a systemic Alleged Pre-Screening Policy exists and is ultra vires
  2. 2 Whether Director applied an unlawfully high threshold in recognising non-refoulement significations
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has sufficient interest (standing) to bring a systemic challenge

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's systemic challenge to an Alleged Pre-Screening Policy is not reasonably arguable on the evidence; the only lawful policy is the statutory/administrative requirement of a written signification under s37X and the USM Notice; isolated incorrect decisions do not prove systemic defect; the applicant lacks sufficient interest because the Director has belatedly recognised the applicant's claim and offered compensation making the policy challenge academic; leave to apply for judicial review in respect of Decision (1) is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of Decision (1) dismissed

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review in respect of Decision (1) is dismissed
  • Applicant to pay respondents' costs after 28 November 2019 including costs of the hearing on 16 June 2020, with certificate for 2 counsel, to be taxed if not agreed