Re Masud

CACV 251/2018

[2019] HKCA 273

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 251 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 570 OF 2017)

_____________________

_____________________

Before: Hon Yeung Ag CJHC, Yuen and Pang JJA in Court

Date of Judgment: 9 April 2019

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

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

1.By a judgment dated 21 December 2018 ([2018] HKCA 819), this Court (Hon Yeung Acting CJHC, Yuen and Pang JJA) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock dated 11 June 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 dated 18 August 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 9 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 earnestly request the Honourable Judge to allow me (to) stay in Hong Kong and protect me from the danger of being killed or harmed by the supporters of rival political party. The Awami League or persecuted the authorities (sic) for the false charge brought against me (for) the crimes that I did not commit. The Awami League have won the election again and hold very strong position across Bangladesh and this situation (sic). If I am sent back to my country, I would be killed by the Awami League supporters.

Therefore, I kindly request the Honourable (Judge) to provide me protection and allow me (to) stay in Hong Kong till the situation is favourable and safe for me to return Bangladesh.”

5.Pursuant to the directions given by Master Au-Yeung on 10 January 2019 and 24 January 2019, the applicant was obliged to lodge his written submissions on or before 4 pm on 8 February 2019.  The applicant had failed to lodge any written submissions as directed and he was deemed to be relying only on the representations made in the Notice of Motion and was debarred from lodging any further written submissions. 

6.We have duly considered the applicant’s notice of motion.  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 ground advanced by the applicant in the Notice of Motion does not constitute a viable ground for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant did not have reasonably arguable basis to challenge the Judge’s findings. 

8.For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of  21 December 2018, we did not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s order.  None of the questions raised by the applicant in the Notice of Motion involve an arguable point or a question of great general or public importance. Nor do we see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) are not met.

9.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