Re Sheraz Khan

CACV 306/2018

[2019] HKCA 216

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 306OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 589/2017)

__________________

__________________

Before: Hon Lam VP, Kwan and Au JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions: 11 December 2018

Date of Judgment: 27 February 2019

___________________

JUDGMENT

___________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 16 November 2018, we (Lam VP and Kwan JA) handed down our judgment ([2018] HKCA 853) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock (“the Judge”) given on 6 July 2018 ([2018] HKCFI 1442) refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.The applicant now applies for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against our judgment.

3.In his notice of motion dated 27 November 2018 and his written submissions lodged on 11 December 2018, the applicant put forth the following grounds of appeal:

(a)  The Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) was the only authority that made an adverse finding on credibility; and

(b)  The Board should not be the sole authority on the finding of credibility, as that would deprive the applicant of an opportunity to appeal against such a finding. 

4.In our view, the applicant’s grounds of appeal are not reasonably arguable.  Neither this Court nor the Judge had said that the Board was the sole authority on the issue of credibility.  The court’s approach to the Board’s finding on credibility has been clearly explained by the Judge: see [18] of her decision, citing the approach in Re Lakhwinder Singh [2018] HKCA 246. We did not find any legal error in such approach: see [17] of our judgment.

5.In our judgment, the applicant did not raise any question of great general or public importance, as required under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484).  Nor do we see any basis to grant leave on the “otherwise” limb.  The statutory thresholds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal are not met.

6.Accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion.

The applicant acting in person