26 May 2022
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any question of general or public importance under s22(1)(b), his submissions raised new grounds not previously argued (which the Court will not entertain), and the complaints were fact‑sensitive and insufficient to meet the statutory threshold for leave.
23 Oct 2018
The court refused to extend time and dismissed the application for leave because the applicant failed to show good and sufficient reason for an almost four‑month delay, offered an inadequate explanation (need for legal advice and case complexity), counsel made no submissions to support an extension, and the alleged error on legal representation was not reasonably arguable in light of the court's earlier judgment, nor were there grounds under s22(1)(b).
10 Aug 2018
The absence of a translation of the NCF did not constitute a breach of the high standards of fairness because the form was completed with Duty Lawyer assistance on the applicant’s instructions, the applicant failed to identify any specific mistranslation or resultant prejudice, had access to interpretation and could have clarified issues at the Board hearing but declined to give evidence; accordingly there was no reasonably arguable ground and leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused.
30 Jul 2018
Leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused because the applicant failed to identify any arguable error of law or procedural unfairness: he had prior oral opportunities, interpreter assistance, no specifics of COI mishandling, no new factual basis for BOR2 separate from other findings, and no evidential basis that legal representation or an oral hearing would have changed the outcome.