Re Sidhu Davinder Singh

CACV 45/2019

[2019] HKCA 874

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 45OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 76/2018)

_________________

_________________

Before: Hon Yeung VP, Pang JA and Lisa Wong J in Court

Date of Written Submissions: 28 June 2019

Date of Judgment: 5 August 2019

_______________

JUDGMENT

_______________

Hon Lisa Wong J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Application

1.Before the court is a notice of motion filed on 18 June 2019 by the abovenamed applicant, applying for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) against the judgment dated 28 May 2019[1] (“Judgment”) of the Court of Appeal (Yeung Ag CJHC and Lisa Wong J), dismissing the applicant’s appeal from a decision dated 25 January 2019[2] of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“Judge”) refusing him leave to apply for judicial review of the decision dated 10 November 2017 (“Board’s Decision”) of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) in respect his non-refoulement claim.

Paper disposal appropriate

2.Pursuant to the direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeals, unless this court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing.  We agree with the Registrar that a paper disposal is appropriate in this case.

Statutory threshold for leave to appeal to the CFA

3.By virtue of s 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484), an appeal shall lie to the CFA at the discretion of the Court of Appeal (“CA”) or the CFA, from any judgment of the CA in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the CA or the CFA, as the case may be, 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 CFA for decision.

Applicant’s contentions in support of leave to appeal to CFA

4.In support of his application for leave to appeal to the CFA, the applicant first asserted in the notice of motion (sic):

“I am not satisfied with the decision given by torture claim appeal Board because this will leads my life towards more danger. I have problem in my own country. Please keep me to stay here until I have problem.”

5.Second, by his written submission lodged on 28 June 2019, the applicant contended as follows (sic):

“My name is Sidhu Davinder singh and my case no.is CACV 45/2019 and iam an asylum seeker from india .My life is not save in my own country.I come to Hong kong sothat i can save my life.I dont want to live in fear that one can leads my life to death or torture.Its not easy for me to protect myself anywhere in my country because my enemies are so strong

Iam not satisfied with the decision given by appeal board because its lack of facts i have problem with police and no one can stand in front of police if they political party stand by them.

I cant make any complain because they are so corrupt .in police custody many innocent people has been killed and many are missing from long time.

I dont have enough sources to protect my self from them They still come to my place to locate me.iam fear if i return to my country i may tortured or killed by my enemies .i don’t want to die .No one can help me there because almost everyone scared from them

please help me and try to understan the problems which was faced by me during this mean of time.i hope you wil give your carefull attention over this application and wil allow me to process this case

iam seeking your help for this .I request you please help me time and allow me to process this case .

Now i left hope only from you.Because at this moment i cant go back to my country .iam seeking protection from you from this danger.

I hope you will give me your kind favour and allow me to stay in Hong kong untill i have problem in my own country.i hope i will get your kind favour over my application .i wil be greatfull to you for your kindness towards me.”

Discussion

6.The applicant has not by the aforesaid notice of motion or written submission raised any issue for determination by the CFA, whether of great, general or public importance or otherwise.

7.Nor do we see any basis to grant leave under the “or otherwise” limb.

(1)  The bare complaint of dissatisfaction with the decisions made by the Board and the repetition of the allegation of fear of being tortured or even killed upon return to his home country, which allegation arose from 2 relatively minor incidents of threats and harassment and which had already been dismissed by the Board as both defying rational belief and unlikely to materialise, do not constitute grounds of appeal, properly so called.

(2)  In particular, the applicant has not engaged the reasons we set out in the Judgment for dismissing his appeal against the Judge’s refusal of leave for judicial review of the Board’s Decision at all. 

(3)  Not only has he completely ignored those reasons, he has seen fit to repeat in the notice of motion and written submission for leave to appeal to the CFA much of the contents of the notice of appeal and written submission that he previously placed before us.

(4)  The proposed appeal to the CFA is utterly devoid of merit.

8.Neither of the statutory criteria under s 22(1)(b) for leave to appeal to the CFA is met.  Accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person