Re Sahota Tarsem Singh

CACV 430/2018

[2019] HKCA 308

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 430 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1089 OF 2017)

_____________________

_____________________

_______________________

JUDGMENT

_______________________

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

1.By a judgment dated 18 January 2019 ([2019] HKCA 18), this Court (Yeung Acting CJHC and Poon JA) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam dated 13 August 2018 refusing to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review.  The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 26 July 2017 and the decision of Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 1 December 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 31 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:

“1.   Ground 2 should stand on its own because it is not a bare allegation without basis.  I was in custody when I filed for the application for leave to apply for judicial review but given limited communication opportunity, I could not give full instructions.  Furthermore, the “help” costs me a lot.  Bearing in mind that I am a non-refoulement claimant with no work rights, I had to save up all of my welfare from the ISS in order to pay for the work.  I can no longer afford such help.

2.   I do not understand what “his appeal case was heard by the Judge in which he was provided with interpretation and every opportunity to explain his case” means.  It could be the Adjudicator for my appeal or the Judge for my leave to apply for judicial review.  In any event, I was not given “every opportunity to explain my case”.

3.   I did not understand the requirement to lodge skeleton submission and was not aware that this would cost me a hearing opportunity.  Such lack of assistance is unreasonable.”

5.In compliance with the direction given by Master Au-Yeung on 4 February 2019, the applicant lodged his written submission on 14 February 2019.  In his written submissions, the applicant reiterated his complaints as set out in the Notice of Motion. 

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.  In our view, none of the grounds mentioned in the Notice of Motion or the written submissions constitute viable grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 18 January 2019, we did not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s order. 

8.None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion or in his written submissions involve any question of great general or public importance is such that it ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.  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