Reform Urged After Court Raps Asylum Appeal Ruling

A human rights organisation is calling for more transparency over how Hong Kong deals with appeals by asylum seekers, after a judge quashed a decision against a pregnant woman, slamming the adjudicator as "cynical" and lacking in compassion.

The call by human rights organisation Justice Centre Hong Kong came after the High Court on Tuesday ruled in favour of a Filipino woman, who was compelled to go ahead with her appeal hearing despite experiencing labour pains.

The centre said more than 90 percent of those on appeal before the Torture Claims Appeal Board – which hears appeals from torture claimants who have had their applications for asylum rejected by the Immigration Department – appear without legal representation, and only around 0.5 percent of the appeals are successful.

The adjudicators are former judges, magistrates or barristers, as well as those considered qualified by the Chief Executive, who nominates them.

In the judgement handed down on Tuesday, deputy High Court judge Amanda Woodcock said the “clear cynicism” in the pregnant woman's case was unacceptable.

The asylum seeker, Villarico Loutherliz Talag, had appeared before the board in September 2016, when she was eight-and-a-half months pregnant. Prior to her hearing, she told the clerk that she was unwell, and was experiencing contractions. She had been in hospital for five days prior to that for pregnancy-related complications.

She said she wanted to adjourn the hearing. But during the proceedings the adjudicator told her that he wouldn't allow this and also said he would not organise another hearing.

He told her that she would only have to answer at most five or six questions, and asked if she wanted to answer them. She said she would prefer not to, and the hearing was ended. The woman gave birth 30 hours later.

Four months later, the adjudicator announced his decision, dismissing her appeal, and making no mention of the adjournment conversation.

Justice Woodcock slammed the lack of compassion demonstrated, and said the adjudicator had failed to conduct the hearings to a high standard of fairness, and there had been both procedural irregularities and an error of law.

The board's decision was quashed, and the appeal was sent back to the board for reconsideration, by another adjudicator.

Annie Li, research and policy officer at the Justice Centre Hong Kong, said there's no need for the board's hearings to always be held in private, and NGOs have routinely been refused access to them.

The centre said the UN's Committee on Torture had also called for more transparency in February 2016, recommending the board publish redacted decisions.

Li said the government only said that the board is considering the UN's recommendations.