不驅回聲請逾期上訴是否應考慮實質理據？上訴得直

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：KHAN KAMAL AHMED - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：袁家寧上訴法庭法官、黃佩琪原訟法庭法官 - 判決日期：2019年4月2日 ### 案情摘要 申請人KHAN KAMAL AHMED是一名巴基斯坦國民，因目睹一宗謀殺案而聲稱受到巴基斯坦穆斯林聯盟（謝里夫派）(PML(N)) 成員的威脅。他於2014年1月3日非法進入香港，並於同年1月5日提出不驅回聲請 (non-refoulement claim)。入境事務處處長（「處長」）於2016年1月22日及2016年11月22日兩度拒絕其聲請。申請人於2017年6月16日向酷刑聲請上訴委員會（「委員會」）提出上訴，但已遠超法定的14天期限，且未提供延遲提交的理由。委員會因此拒絕其逾期上訴申請。申請人隨後申請司法覆核許可，原訟法庭法官拒絕批出許可，但指出委員會在處理逾期申請時應考慮聲請的實質理據。申請人就此拒絕許可的決定向上訴法庭提出上訴。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於原訟法庭法官在處理司法覆核許可申請時，是否錯誤地自行評估不驅回聲請的實質理據，而非將案件發還酷刑聲請上訴委員會重新考慮。申請人認為其生命在原居國不安全，而委員會拒絕其逾期上訴申請時未充分考慮其聲請的實質理據。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭裁定，酷刑聲請上訴委員會在處理逾期提交上訴通知書的申請時，錯誤地未有考慮申請人聲請的實質理據。根據《入境條例》(Immigration Ordinance) 第37ZT(3)條，委員會擁有酌情權，在有特殊情況下允許逾期提交，若不允許將會不公。委員會應在三階段審查程序的第三階段，即評估所有情況以公正處理申請時，考慮聲請的實質理據。原訟法庭法官錯誤地自行評估聲請的實質理據，而非將案件發還委員會重新考慮，因司法覆核法院的職責是審查委員會的決定是否存在法律錯誤、程序不公或不合理，而非重新評估不驅回聲請。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了《入境條例》(Immigration Ordinance) 第37ZT條，該條規定了酷刑聲請上訴委員會處理逾期上訴的酌情權和程序。此外，亦引用了英國上訴法院案例 *The Secretary of State for the Home Department v Begum* (2016) EWCA Civ 122，該案確立了處理逾期申請的三階段審查方法。香港終審法院案例 *Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung* (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676 則確立了司法覆核許可申請的門檻。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭裁定申請人上訴得直，撤銷原訟法庭法官拒絕批出司法覆核許可的命令。法庭批予申請人司法覆核許可，並指示申請人須於判決日期起計14天內提交及送達傳訊令狀，列明委員會未有考慮其不驅回聲請的實質理據為申請理由。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了司法覆核法院在不驅回聲請案件中的角色，即審查下級機關的決定，而非重新評估聲請的實質理據。它強調了酷刑聲請上訴委員會在處理逾期上訴申請時，即使申請人未提供延遲理由，也應考慮聲請的實質理據，以確保公正處理。 --- ### 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: KHAN KAMAL AHMED - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Yuen JA and Lisa Wong J - Date of Judgment: 2 April 2019 ### Factual Background The applicant, KHAN KAMAL AHMED, a Pakistani national, claimed fear of harm from members of the Pakistan Muslim League (N) (PML(N)) after witnessing a murder. He entered Hong Kong illegally on 3 January 2014 and lodged a non-refoulement claim on 5 January 2014. The Director of Immigration (the "Director") rejected his claim twice, on 22 January 2016 and 22 November 2016. The applicant appealed to the Torture Claims Appeals Board (the "Board") on 16 June 2017, significantly beyond the 14-day statutory limit, without providing reasons for the delay. The Board consequently rejected his late appeal. The applicant sought leave for judicial review, which was refused by the Court of First Instance judge, who nonetheless noted the Board should have considered the merits of the claim. The applicant appealed this refusal of leave. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question was whether the Court of First Instance judge erred by assessing the substantive merits of the non-refoulement claim herself, instead of remitting the matter back to the Torture Claims Appeals Board for reconsideration. The applicant argued his life was unsafe in his home country and that the Board failed to adequately consider the merits of his claim when rejecting his late appeal. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal ruled that the Torture Claims Appeals Board erred by failing to consider the substantive merits of the applicant's non-refoulement claim when deciding on his late application for appeal. Section 37ZT(3) of the Immigration Ordinance grants the Board discretion to allow late filing in special circumstances where it would be unjust not to do so. The Board should have considered the merits during the third stage of the three-stage inquiry process, which involves evaluating all circumstances to deal justly with the application. The Court of First Instance judge wrongly assessed the merits herself, as the role of a judicial review court is to scrutinize the Board's decision for errors of law, procedural unfairness, or irrationality, not to re-assess the non-refoulement claim. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The judgment cited Section 37ZT of the Immigration Ordinance, which governs the Board's discretion and procedure for handling late appeals. It also referred to the English Court of Appeal case *The Secretary of State for the Home Department v Begum* (2016) EWCA Civ 122, which outlined a three-stage approach for considering late applications. *Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung* (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676, a Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal case, was cited regarding the threshold for granting leave for judicial review. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal allowed the applicant's appeal, setting aside the Court of First Instance judge's order refusing leave for judicial review. Leave for judicial review was granted to the applicant. The applicant was directed to file and serve an originating summons within 14 days from the judgment date, stating the ground that the Board failed to consider the substance of his non-refoulement claim. ### Key Takeaways This judgment clarifies the scope of judicial review in non-refoulement cases, emphasizing that courts should review the decisions of lower tribunals rather than re-evaluating the substantive merits of the claims. It highlights that the Torture Claims Appeals Board, when considering late appeal applications, must take into account the underlying merits of the claim, even if no reason for delay is provided, to ensure justice. --- ### 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.