延長司法覆核上訴時間的條件？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：AHMED ZAKAR - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：林文瀚副庭長、潘兆初上訴法官 - 判決日期：2019年5月27日 ### 案情摘要 申請人是一名巴基斯坦國民，於2011年非法進入香港，並於同年11月提出酷刑聲請 (torture claim)，後被視為不驅回聲請 (non-refoulement claim)。其聲請理由是擔心返回巴基斯坦會被蓋達組織成員殺害。入境事務處處長 (Director of Immigration) 拒絕其聲請後，申請人向酷刑聲請上訴委員會/審裁員 (Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator) 提出上訴，但委員會於2017年7月11日駁回上訴。申請人隨後申請司法覆核許可 (leave to apply for judicial review)，但原訟法庭法官於2018年7月6日拒絕批予許可。申請人其後申請延長上訴時間以就該拒絕許可的決定提出上訴，但亦被拒絕。本案是申請人向上訴法庭再次申請延長上訴時間。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議在於是否應批准申請人延長時間，以就原訟法庭拒絕其司法覆核許可申請的決定提出上訴。上訴法庭需考慮延誤的長度、延誤的原因、擬議上訴的勝訴機會，以及對答辯人造成的損害。申請人聲稱延誤是因為沒有收到信件，但未提出實質的司法覆核理據。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭根據處理延長上訴時間申請的四項原則（延誤長度、延誤原因、上訴勝訴機會、對答辯人損害）進行分析。法庭認為申請人延誤超過三個月是實質性延誤，且其未收到信件的解釋不可接受，因為訴訟人有責任提供有效的通訊地址。最重要的是，法庭認為擬議上訴毫無勝訴機會，因為申請人未能指出原訟法庭法官裁決中的任何錯誤，且其司法覆核申請本身缺乏實質理據。司法覆核並非提供額外上訴途徑，法院不會干預委員會的決定，除非存在法律錯誤、程序不公或不合理性。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案引用了多宗案例，確立了處理延長上訴時間申請的原則，特別是在不驅回聲請案件中： - Re MK HCMP 2609/2016 - Chu On Fong Winter v The Appeal Panel (Housing) HCMP 982/2017 - Islam Raja Rais v Director of Immigration HCMP 881/2017 - Re Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226 - Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346 這些案例強調即使延誤理由不合理，仍需審查上訴理據。此外，Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 等案例重申了司法覆核中法院的角色並非重新審理案件，而是審查原決定的法律錯誤或程序不公。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回了申請人於2019年1月31日提出的傳票，即拒絕批准其延長時間以就原訟法庭拒絕司法覆核許可的決定提出上訴。法庭亦命令根據《高等法院規則》第59號命令第2A條規則第(8)款，任何一方不得要求在雙方口頭聆訊中重新考慮此項裁定。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了在不驅回聲請案件中，司法覆核並非提供額外上訴途徑，法院不會取代主要決策者（入境處處長和酷刑聲請上訴委員會）的角色。申請人若要延長上訴時間，必須有充分的延誤理由和具備勝訴機會的實質上訴理據。僅僅重複案件的事實背景不足以構成有效的上訴理由。 --- ### 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: AHMED ZAKAR - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Lam VP, Poon JA - Date of Judgment: 27 May 2019 ### Factual Background The applicant, a Pakistani national, entered Hong Kong illegally in 2011 and lodged a torture claim in November of the same year, which was later treated as a non-refoulement claim. His claim was based on fear of being killed by Al Qaeda members if he returned to Pakistan. After the Director of Immigration rejected his claim, the applicant appealed to the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator, which dismissed his appeal on 11 July 2017. The applicant then sought leave to apply for judicial review, but the Court of First Instance judge refused leave on 6 July 2018. Subsequently, his application for an extension of time to appeal against that refusal was also denied. This case concerns the applicant's renewed application to the Court of Appeal for an extension of time to appeal. ### Key Legal Issues The main legal issue was whether the applicant should be granted an extension of time to appeal against the Court of First Instance's refusal of leave for judicial review. The Court of Appeal had to consider the length of delay, the reasons for the delay, the prospect of the intended appeal, and any prejudice to the respondent. The applicant claimed the delay was due to not receiving correspondence but failed to provide substantive grounds for judicial review. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal analyzed the application based on four principles for extending time to appeal: length of delay, reasons for delay, prospect of success, and prejudice to the respondent. The court found the over three-month delay to be substantial and the applicant's explanation of not receiving letters unacceptable, as litigants are responsible for providing effective communication addresses. Crucially, the court determined the intended appeal was devoid of merit, as the applicant failed to identify any error in the judge's decision, and his judicial review application itself lacked substantive grounds. Judicial review is not an additional avenue of appeal, and the court will not intervene with the Board's decision unless there are errors of law, procedural unfairness, or irrationality. ### Key Precedents & Statutes This case cited several precedents establishing principles for extending time to appeal, particularly in non-refoulement cases: - Re MK HCMP 2609/2016 - Chu On Fong Winter v The Appeal Panel (Housing) HCMP 982/2017 - Islam Raja Rais v Director of Immigration HCMP 881/2017 - Re Gurung Min Bahadur [2018] HKCA 226 - Re Saqlain Muhammad [2018] HKCA 346 These cases emphasize that even if delay reasons are unreasonable, the merits of the appeal must still be examined. Additionally, cases like Nupur Mst v Director of Immigration [2018] HKCA 524 reiterated that the court's role in judicial review is not to re-hear the case but to review the original decision for legal errors or procedural unfairness. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's summons dated 31 January 2019, thereby refusing to grant an extension of time to appeal against the Court of First Instance's refusal of leave for judicial review. The court also ordered, pursuant to Order 59, rule 2A(8) of the Rules of the High Court, that no party may request this determination be reconsidered at an oral hearing inter partes. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms that in non-refoulement cases, judicial review is not an additional avenue of appeal, and the court will not usurp the role of the primary decision-makers (the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board). For an extension of time to appeal to be granted, an applicant must provide satisfactory reasons for the delay and demonstrate substantive grounds with a realistic prospect of success for the intended appeal. Merely reiterating factual background does not constitute a valid ground of appeal. --- ### 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.