Re Dilbag Singh

CACV 124/2018

[2018] HKCA 627

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 124 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 613 of 2017)

________________________

________________________

Before: Hon Chu, Barma and Poon JJA in Court

Date of Judgment: 28 September 2018

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

1.On 23 July 2018, this Court (Chu and Barma JJA) handed down our judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Toh J given on 25 April 2018 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.By a Notice of Motion dated 1 August 2018, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. On 14 August 2018, the applicant put in a written submission to support his application.

3.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.

4.The sole ground stated in the Notice of Motion is that the applicant is not safe to go back to his home country because his enemies are still looking for him.  The applicant asked to be allowed to stay in Hong Kong until his problem is solved. 

5.In his written submission, the applicant further stated that his enemies were powerful and strong because of their political links.  He claimed they could locate him anywhere in the country and he would be tortured and killed.  He said they always went to his place to look for him, and the police could not take any action against them.

6.The matters set out in the Notice of Motion and the written submission are case-specific and relate only to the personal circumstances of the applicant.  They do not involve any question of great, general or public importance.  Further, for the reasons set out in our judgment, they do not constitute arguable grounds for giving leave to apply for judicial review.

7.There is also no other reason for submitting the proposed appeal to the Court of Final Appeal for decision. 

8.In the circumstances, the condition for giving leave to appeal is not met.  Accordingly, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.