Re Mohammed Selim

CAMP 116/2018

[2019] HKCA 97

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 116 OF 2018

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 92 OF 2017)

________________________

________________________

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1)   Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.1On 19 November 2018, this Court (Cheung and Poon JJA) gave the decision dismissing the applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal (‘extension decision’) against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Marlene Ng (as she then was) given on 21 November 2017 in which she refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review (‘Decision of the Judge’).

1.2The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion dated 21 November 2018, for leave to appeal against our extension decision to the Court of Final Appeal.

1.3The applicant stated in his Notice of Motion that :

‘ - My application has arguable chance and reasonable chance of success

-  I am filing this application as to the Order/Judgment under CAMP 116/2018 in unfair and unreasonable’

1.4The applicant’s supporting affirmation dated 21 November 2018 stated that :

‘ …I am applying for …leave to appeal…on two grounds that it involves points of law of great and general importance namely whether lack of legal representation is reasonable basis to challenge the fairness of the process; and whether there might be an additional basis for advancing a case on the BOR 2 risk separate from the BOR 3 risk, torture risk and persecution’

1.5In non-compliance with the orders of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 27 November 2018, the applicant failed to lodge his written submissions by 5 December 2018.  This application is determined on paper based on the applicant’s Notice of Motion and supporting affirmation both filed on 21 November 2018.

2)  Legal principles

2Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

3)  Our view

3.1The matters stated by the applicant in his Notice of Motion and supporting affirmation do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant 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 the HKCFAO.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his Notice of Motion and supporting affirmation.

3.2We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

4)  Disposition

4.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 21 November 2018 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person