Re Mehmood Adil

CACV 336/2018

[2019] HKCA 266

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 336 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 703 OF 2017)

_____________________

_____________________

_______________________

JUDGMENT

_______________________

Hon Yeung Ag CJHC (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.By a judgment dated 14 December 2018 ([2018] HKCA 951), this Court (Hon Yeung Acting CJHC, Barma JA and L Chan J) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock (“the Judge”) dated 18 July 2018 refusing to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review.  The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 22 September 2017.  The applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

3.By a Notice of Motion dated 8 January 2019, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

4.In the Notice of Motion, the applicant set out the following grounds:

(i) The Judge had failed to appreciate the significance of the applicant’s non-refoulement claim and failed to assess his case with caution.  

(ii) There was an error of law or procedure or procedural unfairness or failure to adhere to a high standard of fairness in the Judge’s decision. 

(iii) Lack of legal assistance provided to the applicant for his leave application before the Judge.

(iv) The Director of Immigration (“the Director”) had failed to ensure the letter from the Immigration Department had been duly delivered to him in respect of his claim on BOR 2 risk and it was unreasonable for the Director to expect him to understand the content of the letter.  There was a lack of language assistance for his claim on BOR 2 risk.  

(v) There was discrimination against non-refoulement claimants.

5.In compliance with the direction given by Master Au-Yeung on 9 January 2019, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 22 January 2019.  In his written submissions, the applicant reiterated the grounds of appeal as set out in his Notice of Motion.  Those grounds were argued before the Judge and they were duly considered and rightly rejected by the Judge at the lower court hearing.

6.We have duly considered the applicant’s notice of motion and his written submissions.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, this application is processed on papers without any oral hearing.

7.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.  Here, the applicant merely sought to re-argue his case which was previously ventilated before this Court.  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.  For the reasons that the court gave in the judgment of 14 December 2018, we do not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s order. 

8.None of the matters relied upon by the applicant amount to questions of great, general or public importance.  The applicant has failed to meet the threshold imposed by section 22(1)(b) to enable him to obtain leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

9.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person