Re Raza Amir
Read the full judgment text of CACV 309/2018 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 8 January 2019.
1. On 31 October 2018, this Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock given on 5 July 2018 in which she refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.
Cited by 1 case
|
CACV 309/2018 [2019] HKCA 33 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO. 309 OF 2018 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 652 OF 2017) ________________________
________________________ Before: Hon Cheung, Kwan and Pang JJA in Court Date of Applicant’s Written Submissions: 26 November 2018 Date of Decision: 8 January 2019 ________________________ D E C I S I O N ________________________ Hon Cheung JA (giving the decision of the Court) : 1.On 31 October 2018, this Court dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock given on 5 July 2018 in which she refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. 2.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as our reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment. We will not repeat them here. 3.The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion dated 13 November 2018, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. We will deal with it on paper. 4.The applicant stated in his Notice of Motion that he could not go back to his home country at this moment as it is unsafe. In his written submission dated 26 November 2018, he explains why it is unsafe for his return and that he is fearful of his safety. 5.The matters stated by the applicant in his Notice of Motion and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. He has failed to identify any question of general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484). Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his Notice of Motion and written submissions. 6.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b). 7.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 13 November 2018 is dismissed.
Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 309/2018