Re Daljit Singh

CACV 294/2017

[2018] HKCA 484

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 294 OF 2017

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 428/2017)

________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

1.This Court (Cheung CJHC and Lam VP) handed down judgment on 5 June 2018 dismissing the appeal.

2.On 11 June 2018, the applicant issued a Notice of Motion seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant did not set out any questions of great general or public importance in the Notice. 

3.Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged submissions (written in English) in support of his application on 25 June 2018.

4.The applicant reiterated that he should have legal representation in respect of his BOR 2 claim.   

5.Having read his written submissions and Notice of Motion, we are of the view that the Notice of Motion can be processed on the papers without any oral hearing.

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. The allegations of the applicant were bare assertions. This Court upheld the determination of the judge below that there is no merit in his application for judicial review against the assessment of the Board. The Board, in its decision of 13 July 2017, concluded that there is no real risk of torture or serious harm or ill-treatment or violation of his right to life. The Board also concluded that internal relocation is a viable option.

8.The applicant has not raised any 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.

9.The Notice of Motion of 11 June 2018 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person