S v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

S v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to demonstrate reasonably arguable grounds with a realistic prospect of success: the Adjudicator did not err in law or breach procedural fairness, properly considered COI and state protection, correctly applied the standard of proof, and reasonably concluded the assaults were private non-state conduct not amounting to torture or CIDTP; the Applicant's unexplained 22‑month delay to challenge the Director's decision warranted refusal of extension of time.

Citation
S v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER
Parties
Applicant: S; 1st Putative Respondent: TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD; 2nd Putative Respondent: DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION
Court
Court of First Instance
Jurisdiction
Hong Kong
Judgment Date
29 May 2017
Case Number
HCAL160/2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review of Unified Screening Mechanism Non Refoulement Decision / Leave Application (refused)
Outcome
Leave to apply for judicial review refused; extension of time to apply for judicial review refused
Legal Topics
Non Refoulement, Torture (cat), Bill of Rights Article 3, State Protection/due Diligence, Judicial Review (leave), Enhanced Wednesbury Unreasonableness
Source Language
EN
Immigration Law Administrative Law Constitutional Law Human Rights Law Non Refoulement Torture (cat) Bill of Rights Article 3 State Protection/due Diligence +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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

S

Applicant

TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

1st Putative Respondent

DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION

2nd Putative Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review of Unified Screening Mechanism Non Refoulement Decision / Leave Application (refused)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 whether the Adjudicator made errors of law or breached procedural fairness
  2. 2 whether the decision was Wednesbury unreasonable under enhanced scrutiny
  3. 3 whether the Applicant faced a real risk of torture or CIDTP from private actors

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the Applicant failed to demonstrate reasonably arguable grounds with a realistic prospect of success: the Adjudicator did not err in law or breach procedural fairness, properly considered COI and state protection, correctly applied the standard of proof, and reasonably concluded the assaults were private non-state conduct not amounting to torture or CIDTP; the Applicant's unexplained 22‑month delay to challenge the Director's decision warranted refusal of extension of time.

Court Disposition

Leave to apply for judicial review refused; extension of time to apply for judicial review refused

Orders

  • Leave to apply for judicial review refused
  • Application for extension of time refused