Re Gurung Min Bahadur

CAMP 9/2018

[2018] HKCA 335

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 9 OF 2018

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 343 OF 2017)

______________________________________

______________________________________

__________________

JUDGMENT

__________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 30 April 2018 the Court (Lam VP and Poon JA) handed down judgment refusing to grant extension of time to the applicant to appeal against the decision of P Li J on 12 January 2018. The principal reason for refusing extension was our conclusion that the intended appeal had no merit.

2.On 9 May 2018, the applicant issued a Notice of Motion seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the notice, he disagreed that his appeal was hopeless.  He said it was unfair not to grant him extension of time as he had only got the sealed order at the earliest on 17 January 2018.  He also requested for oral hearing.

3.Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged submissions in support of his application on 29 May 2018.

4.Notwithstanding the applicant’s request, application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is usually processed on the papers.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and skeleton submissions, we do not see any justification for departing from such usual practice.    

5.In the judgment of 30 April 2018, the Court assessed the merits of the intended appeal by reference to the assessment of the risk of harm by the Board based on the facts of this case.  It was a case and fact sensitive assessment.  For the reasons given, the intended appeal was wholly devoid of merit, see in particular [11] to [13] of the judgment.

6.The relevant criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal are set out in Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance Cap 484:

“ An appeal shall lie to the Court [of Final Appeal] at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court [of Final Appeal], from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court [of Final Appeal], as the case may be, the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court [of Final Appeal] for decision.”

7.Having read the documents, we cannot find any basis for holding that leave to appeal should be granted pursuant to Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.  There is no question of great general or public importance in the intended appeal.  Nor is there any reason for leave to be granted on the “otherwise” limb.

8.The Notice of Motion of 9 May 2018 is therefore dismissed.

The applicant acting in person