Re Md Shohel Sheak
Read the full judgment text of CACV 233A/2018 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 22 February 2019 before Hon Lam VP, Kwan JA and L Chan J.
Administrative law – judicial review – leave to apply for judicial review – torture claim – Torture Claims Appeal Board – appeal – leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal – whether question of great general or public importance – whether 'otherwise' limb engaged – applicant failed to raise any viable ground – state acquiescence argument could not get off the ground – statutory threshold under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) not met – leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused – notice of motion dismissed.
Legal issues: Whether leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal should be granted
Outcome: Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused; notice of motion dismissed.
Cites 2 cases
|
CACV 233/2018 [2019] HKCA 189 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 233 OF 2018 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1092/2017) ______________________
______________________
___________________ J U D G M E N T ___________________ Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.By our judgment dated 16 October 2018 ([2018] HKCA 714), we dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam dated 12 June 2018 ([2018] HKCFI 1254) refusing leave to apply for judicial review. 2.By a notice of motion dated 29 October 2018, the applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 3.In his affirmation in support of this application dated 29 October 2018, the applicant stated that we were wrong in law in holding that there was no state acquiescence or involvement and that the court had failed to find out the current situation in Bangladesh. 4.In his written submissions lodged on 3 December 2018, the applicant submitted that high standards of fairness were required in determination of a torture claim, that Torture Claims Appeal Board failed to consider the substantive merits of the applicant’s claim and failed to have regard to conditions in the applicant’s country of origin, and that the decision maker had a common law duty to act fairly. 5.As stated in [13] of our judgment, we only processed the appeal based on the grounds of appeal advanced by the applicant. For the reasons given in our judgment, there was no viable ground for challenging the judge’s decision. At [16] of the judgment, we explained how the argument on state acquiescence cannot get off the ground in light on the findings in the present case. 6.In our judgment, the applicant failed to raise any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine. Nor do we see any basis to grant leave on the “otherwise” limb. The statutory threshold under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) is not met. 7.For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to the applicant to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The notice of motion is dismissed accordingly.
The applicant acting in person |