Re Lakhwinder Singh

CACV 21/2018

[2018] HKCA 535

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 21 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 71 OF 2017)

---------------------------------

---------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.By a judgment dated 2 May 2018, this court (Lam VP and Barma JA) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Li J of 19 January 2018 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review. By a notice of motion dated 9 May 2018, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against the judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

2.We have duly considered the applicant’s notice of motion and his written submission dated 29 May 2018.  In substance, he submitted that he lacked legal assistance to adequately present his case on BOR2 risk.

3.Notwithstanding the applicant’s request for an oral hearing, application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is usually processed on the papers as provided for by paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1 on Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal filed in the Court of Appeal in Civil Cases which states that leave applications shall be dealt with and determined on paper unless the court directs otherwise.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and skeleton submissions, we do not see any justification for departing from such usual practice.  We consider that the application can be properly disposed of without an oral hearing, and have proceeded to consider the application on paper.  We now hand down our judgment.

4.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted if 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.  Here, the applicant submitted that the Duty Lawyer Service should have assisted him in presenting his case based on BOR2 risk.  He also submitted that the trial judge did not address any of the applicant’s grounds for application for judicial review.

5.For the reasons that the court gave in the judgment of 2 May 2018, we do not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s order.  The court observed that the applicant was given a chance to submit additional information on BOR2 risk to the Director but did not do so.  It cannot be said that the lack of assistance from the Duty Lawyer Service had caused the applicant any real prejudice.  Also, this court has already dealt with the allegation concerning the trial judge in the judgment dated 2 May 2018. The applicant simply repeated his allegation and did not add anything to this ground. 

6.None of the matters relied upon by the applicant amount to questions of great, general or public importance.  The applicant has failed to meet the threshold imposed by section 22(1)(b) to enable him to obtain leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

7.Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his notice of motion.

The applicant acting in person