不驅回聲請司法覆核許可上訴？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Zafar Muazam v Director of Immigration - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：林文瀚副庭長、朱芬齡上訴法官、黃健倫法官 - 判決日期：2018年3月23日 ### 案情摘要 申請人是一名巴基斯坦國民，於2006年非法進入香港。他於2008年提出根據《禁止酷刑公約》(CAT) 的不驅回聲請 (non-refoulement claim)。2014年統一審核機制 (unified screening mechanism) 實施後，其聲請被轉為不驅回聲請。申請人聲稱若被遣返巴基斯坦，將面臨生命危險或被捕，因為其家人在選舉中未投票給一名叫Sikandar的人，且Sikandar錯誤指控他殺害其兒子。入境事務處處長（下稱「處長」）於2015年和2016年拒絕其聲請，酷刑聲請上訴委員會／不驅回聲請呈請辦事處（下稱「委員會」）於2017年駁回其上訴。申請人隨後向上訴法庭申請司法覆核許可，但被原訟法庭法官拒絕。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議為原訟法庭法官拒絕司法覆核許可的決定是否正確。申請人提出兩項上訴理據：(1) 處長作出決定後，他未獲法律代表，違反了高度公平標準 (high standard of fairness)；(2) 在整個程序中，包括向委員會上訴時，他未獲必要的語言協助。上訴法庭亦需決定是否接納申請人提出的新證據。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭維持原訟法庭的決定，認為申請人提出的司法覆核申請沒有合理可爭辯之處，亦沒有實際成功機會。關於新證據，法庭應用了《Ladd v. Marshall》案的三項原則，裁定申請人未能證明這些證據無法透過合理努力在原訟法庭取得，且即使接納這些證據，亦不會影響處長和委員會對風險評估的結論，即風險不高，因為巴基斯坦仍有國家保護和內部遷徙的可能性。關於法律代表和語言協助，法庭重申不驅回聲請人並無在所有階段獲得免費法律代表的絕對權利，且申請人有能力尋求協助，並未證明程序存在不當之處。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了以下案例： - Hounkpedji Messanh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board CACV 164/2017, [2018] HKCA 152：關於上訴法庭接納新證據的原則。 - Ladd v. Marshall [1954] EWCA Civ 1, 1 WLR 1489：確立了上訴法庭接納新證據的三項原則。 - Po Fan Chan v. Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676：關於司法覆核許可申請的門檻，即須有合理可爭辯之處和實際成功機會。 - Sakthevel Prabakar v. Secretary for Security (2004) 7 HKCFAR 187：確立了處理不驅回聲請時的高度公平標準。 - Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14, Re Zahid Abbas [2018] HKCA 15, Re Tariq Farhan [2018] HKCA 17, Re Lopchan Subash [2018] HKCA 37：重申不驅回聲請人並無在所有階段獲得免費法律代表的絕對權利。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回申請人的上訴，維持原訟法庭拒絕司法覆核許可的決定。法庭亦拒絕接納申請人提出的新證據。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了司法覆核許可申請的嚴格門檻，以及上訴法庭接納新證據的《Ladd v. Marshall》原則。同時，它強調不驅回聲請人並非在所有程序階段都享有免費法律代表的絕對權利，且申請人需證明其未獲法律或語言協助導致程序不公，而非僅僅聲稱缺乏協助。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: Zafar Muazam v Director of Immigration - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Lam VP, Chu JA and L Wong J - Date of Judgment: 23 March 2018 ### Factual Background The applicant, a Pakistani national, entered Hong Kong illegally in 2006. He made a non-refoulement claim under Article 3 of the Convention against Torture (CAT) in 2008, which was later assessed under the unified screening mechanism. His claim was based on fear of harm or arrest if returned to Pakistan, due to his family not voting for a Mr Sikandar and Sikandar wrongly accusing him of killing his son. The Director of Immigration (the "Director") rejected his claim in 2015 and 2016, and the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (the "Board") dismissed his appeal in 2017. The applicant then sought leave for judicial review, which was refused by a judge of the Court of First Instance. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal questions in dispute were whether the judge of the Court of First Instance erred in refusing leave for judicial review. The applicant raised two grounds of appeal: (1) he was not given legal representation after the Director's decision, violating the principle of high standard of fairness; and (2) he was not provided with necessary language assistance throughout the process, including the appeal to the Board. The Court of Appeal also had to decide on the admissibility of new evidence presented by the applicant. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision, finding that the intended judicial review was not reasonably arguable and had no realistic prospect of success. Regarding the new evidence, the court applied the three requirements from Ladd v. Marshall, ruling that the applicant failed to demonstrate that the evidence could not have been obtained with reasonable diligence for use in the court below. Furthermore, even if admitted, the new evidence would not alter the Director's and Board's assessment that the risk was low, given the availability of state protection and internal relocation in Pakistan. On legal representation and language assistance, the court reiterated that non-refoulement claimants do not have an absolute right to free legal representation at all stages, and the applicant failed to show any procedural irregularity. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The case cited the following precedents: - Hounkpedji Messanh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board CACV 164/2017, [2018] HKCA 152: Regarding principles for admitting new evidence on appeal. - Ladd v. Marshall [1954] EWCA Civ 1, 1 WLR 1489: Established the three requirements for admitting new evidence on appeal. - Po Fan Chan v. Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676: On the threshold for leave to apply for judicial review, requiring reasonable arguability and realistic prospect of success. - Sakthevel Prabakar v. Secretary for Security (2004) 7 HKCFAR 187: Established the high standard of fairness in non-refoulement claims. - Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14, Re Zahid Abbas [2018] HKCA 15, Re Tariq Farhan [2018] HKCA 17, Re Lopchan Subash [2018] HKCA 37: Reaffirmed that non-refoulement claimants do not have an absolute right to free legal representation at all stages. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's appeal, upholding the refusal of leave to apply for judicial review. The court also refused to admit the new evidence presented by the applicant. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reinforces the strict threshold for obtaining leave for judicial review and the application of the Ladd v. Marshall principles for admitting new evidence on appeal. It also clarifies that non-refoulement claimants do not have an absolute right to free legal representation at all stages of the proceedings, and must demonstrate actual procedural irregularity or unfairness due to lack of assistance, rather than merely asserting it. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.