Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Right to life article 2 bor

Legal area

Court

23 Dec 2025

GRAPH PETER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2025] HKCFI 6395
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL1896/2020

Extension of time was refused and the leave application dismissed because, although the delay was short, the applicant failed to identify any arguable legal error, irrationality or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions; the Board's factual risk assessment, supported by COI and findings on state protection and internal relocation, was within its primary decision‑making role and not for judicial review to overturn absent demonstrated legal error.
3 Jun 2020

RE PANCHANATHAN RAMU

Citation

[2020] HKCA 394
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAMP6/2020

Extension of time to apply for leave to appeal was refused because the applicant's delay of over one year was inordinate and inexcusable and, irrespective of delay, the intended appeal had no realistic prospect of success since no grounds were advanced at first instance and the Judge had correctly found no arguable basis for judicial review.
14 Sept 2018

HALIM ABDUL v. KAY RANSOME, ESQ., AND OTHERS [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 2054
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL936/2017

Leave was refused because the Director's and Board's decisions involved no error of law or procedural unfairness, the risk to the applicant was assessed as localized and low, reasonable internal relocation and state protection were available, and the applicant's grounds were vague, lacked particulars and had no realistic prospect of success.
27 Apr 2018

MURTAZA ALI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 880
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL886/2017

Leave to apply for judicial review is refused because, on rigorous examination and anxious scrutiny, the Court found no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Director's or Board's decisions: the applicant had opportunity to present his case, the absence of legal representation and of the Director did not render the process unfair, the Board's adverse credibility findings were open to it after hearing oral evidence, and the assessments of state protection and internal relocation were reasonable; consequently the applicant has no realistic prospect of success.
26 Jan 2018

BEPARY MOHAMMAD ARSHED v. GERARD PAUL MUTTRIE, ESQ. [Decision on Leave Application]

Citation

[2018] HKCFI 100
Court

Court of First Instance
Case number

HCAL171/2017

Leave was refused because the adjudicator lawfully and reasonably evaluated the evidence and country material, made justified credibility findings, concluded there was no real or substantial risk of torture, CIDTP, persecution or arbitrary deprivation of life, and correctly found internal relocation available; the applicant's grounds lacked particulars and no arguable legal error was demonstrated, so there was no realistic prospect of success.

Hong Kong Case Law

GRAPH PETER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

RE PANCHANATHAN RAMU

HALIM ABDUL v. KAY RANSOME, ESQ., AND OTHERS [Decision on Leave Application]

MURTAZA ALI v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD [Decision on Leave Application]

BEPARY MOHAMMAD ARSHED v. GERARD PAUL MUTTRIE, ESQ. [Decision on Leave Application]