19 Nov 2025
Leave was granted because the applicant advanced a reasonably arguable claim that the Board's failure to provide an interpreter and to afford a choice of language rendered the hearing potentially unfair, giving realistic prospects that judicial review could identify procedural unfairness or legal error meriting intervention.
29 Sept 2025
Leave to apply for judicial review was refused because the applicant failed to identify any error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision, offered only bare assertions without particularisation or evidence, and thus failed to demonstrate a realistic prospect of success; the court will not substitute its own view for the Board's fact-finding or credibility determinations.
2 May 2023
The Court refused leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal because the applicant raised new allegations late without evidence, an interpreter had been provided, there is no absolute right to free legal representation at all stages of non-refoulement proceedings, and the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance under section 22(1)(b) to justify certification of the appeal.
5 Aug 2022
The Court refused extension of time and dismissed the summons because the applicant's delay was inexcusable and he failed to demonstrate a real prospect of success; the Board's findings showed no error of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality, and the applicant had received available legal and interpreter assistance.
6 May 2022
On the facts: (1) Hoang — the judge's comments about absence of fingerprints/DNA were contextual, reflected unchallenged evidence about what was examined and did not amount to material misdirection; appeal dismissed. (2) Manan — the trial judge erred by directing the jury that the absence of fingerprints 'proves nothing one way or the other' in unequivocal terms, thereby usurping the jury's fact-finding role; that ground established, conviction quashed and sentence set aside; retrial ordered; good character and interpreter grounds rejected.
10 Jun 2020
Leave to apply for judicial review refused because the applicant failed to identify any reasonably arguable legal error or procedural unfairness in the Director's and Board's decisions; the Board and Director considered the evidence and COI, provided reasons, the applicant had opportunity to be heard with interpreter assistance, and the primary assessment that the risk was localized and that internal relocation was reasonable was defensible and not properly challengeable on judicial review.
25 Mar 2020
The appeal was dismissed because (1) the absence of a separate dockside recording did not violate the right to a fair trial and the applicant failed to demonstrate specific mistranslation or material prejudice from the interpretation provided; (2) the judge’s credibility findings that duress was not established were supported by the evidence and there was no duty to stay proceedings absent a credible suspicion requiring further investigation; (3) complaints about counsel’s conduct were tactical and did not amount to flagrant incompetence; and (4) the sentence was within applicable guidelines…
25 Nov 2019
The Court refused leave because the totality of contemporaneous documentary and audiovisual material, signed instructions, counsel's notes and court transcripts demonstrated the applicant understood English and the interpretation provided, that trial lawyers had taken instructions and acted competently, that summing-up directions were proper in context and that the sentence was not manifestly excessive; the flagrant incompetence ground was unarguable and caused unnecessary detriment to trial lawyers, warranting a three‑month loss‑of‑time order.
16 May 2019
The interpreter at trial lacked the necessary skill and experience to provide simultaneous court interpretation (admitting he could accurately interpret only about 20–30% and was unfamiliar with key legal terminology), and the cumulative deficiencies meant the applicant could not have had sufficient contemporaneous knowledge of the proceedings as required by Article 11(2)(f) of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights; accordingly the conviction was unsafe, must be quashed, sentence set aside and a retrial ordered.
2 Apr 2019
The judge correctly refused leave because there was no arguable error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's or TCAB's decisions; the appellant had legal assistance before the Director, gave oral evidence before the TCAB, failed to demonstrate a viable ground for judicial review, and the Court of Appeal therefore dismissed the appeal as the judge was not plainly wrong.