Re Abdur Rahman

CACV 499/2018

[2019] HKCA 930

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 499 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1108 OF 2017)

_________________

_________________

Before: Hon Cheung, Yuen and Barma JJA in Court

Date of Applicant’s Written Submissions: 24 June 2019

Date of Decision: 15 August 2019

_________________

D E C I S I O N

_________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1.1On 17 May 2019, this Court handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Campbell-Moffat J given on 28 September 2018 in which she refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review (‘Decision of the Judge’).

1.2The 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.  We will not repeat them here.

1.3The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion and affirmation dated 21 May 2019, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

1.4The content of the applicant’s notice of motion is generally undecipherable.  Trying our best, it seems the applicant is saying that it is not true that his claim is without substance; he did not complain about the poor performance of his duty lawyer because he was afraid to be picked out; he reiterated that he did not have time to address the bundles before the Board.  All of these complaints lacked any meaningful particulars.

1.5The applicant’s affirmation exhibited a copy of the Court’s judgment.  It complained that the judges were wrong in law to hold that there was no state acquiescence and they failed to account for the current situation in Bangladesh.  

1.6The applicant’s written submission also lacked specificity and relevance.  Apart from the part dealing with the applicant’s background the written submission is a pro forma document that is commonly used in this type of application.  It sets out broad and general terms, legal principles, concepts and statutory provision for non‑refoulement or constitutional law cases.  They are simply legal propositions without more.

2.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

3.1The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion, affirmation and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion, affirmation and written submissions.

3.2We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

4.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 21 May 2019 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person