28 Jan 2021
Leave to apply for judicial review was properly refused because the applicant failed to state any reasonably arguable grounds, the judge found no legal error or procedural unfairness in the Board's credibility-based decision rejecting the non-refoulement claim, and there was no realistic prospect of success warranting judicial review intervention.
15 Aug 2019
The extension was refused because the applicant had an unexplained substantial delay, advanced no viable grounds of appeal or review, and the judge correctly found no error of law or procedural unfairness in the Board's decision; therefore the intended appeal had no real prospect of success and extension of time would be futile.
11 May 2010
The court refused extensions of time and dismissed the leave applications because the applicants did not establish good reason for the prolonged delays (5–8 years) beyond reliance on Lam Siu Po and legal aid issues, and because granting leave and substantive relief would be detrimental to good administration given incomplete records, unavailable witnesses, operational difficulties and prejudice to the Police Force.