Khan Ramzan v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and Another

CACV 82/2019

[2019] HKCA 888

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 82 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 881 OF 2017)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

Before: Hon Yuen, Barma and Au JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions: 26 July 2019

Date of Judgment: 12 August 2019

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Yuen JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This court (Hon Yuen and Au JJA) handed down judgment on 5 July 2019 ([2019] HKCA 726) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against an order of DHCJ Bruno Chan given on 13 February 2019 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review concerning his non‑refoulement claim. The facts and issues in the appeal before the Court of Appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.

2.The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion on 12 July 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  He lodged his written submissions on 26 July 2019.

3.On 16 July 2019, the Registrar of Civil Appeals directed that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  We agree it is appropriate to determine this application on paper.

4.The applicant stated in his Notice of Motion:

“(1) I did not know failure to lodge skeleton submission would cost me an hearing. I specifically requested for one. I suppose I relied too much on my friends as no translation was given to me.

(2) Judges were procedurally unfair because there was a significance in the part where I could not obtain evidence during my imprisonment.  This is of particular importance as the board did not find me a credible witness.”

5.In the applicant’s submissions, he said he was tortured in Pakistan “and also here” because of his family.  He said he understood his case was personal but alleged his cousin has a “deep relation” with police and other departments and gangs.  He sought to explain inconsistencies in his allegations by saying he was tortured mentally and was mentally disturbed.  He said he does not have any complaint about the decision of this court but requested an extension for him to stay in Hong Kong until his problem in Pakistan was solved as his father was trying to reach an agreement.

6.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, 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 Court of Final Appeal for decision.

7.No question of great general or public importance has been identified in the grounds in the Notice of Motion.

8.Nor do we see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).  The Registrar of Civil Appeals had expressly directed skeleton submissions to be lodged within the specified time, and had informed the appellant that if he failed to do so, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to an oral hearing.  There was no procedural unfairness. 

9.By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion dated 12 July 2019 is dismissed.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person.