Re Rajaram Razeena

CAMP 102/2018

[2019] HKCA 959

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 102 OF 2018

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 529 OF 2017)

________________________

________________________

Before: Hon Cheung, Chu and Au JJA in Court

Date of Applicant’s Written Submissions: 23 July 2019

Date of Decision: 22 August 2019 

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

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

1)  Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal out of time

1.1On 2 November 2018, this Court handed down a decision dismissing the applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 8 June 2018 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

1.2The facts and issues in the application before the Court of Appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our decision.  We will not repeat them here.

1.3The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion and affirmation filed on 12 July 2019, for leave to appeal against our decision to the Court of Final Appeal out of time.  The applicant has also lodged a written submission in support of his application.

1.4Under section 24 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’), if an application for extension of time to appeal is refused by the Court of Appeal, the applicant has 28 days from the date of refusal to file his or her notice of motion.  The applicant is more than eight months late.  The delay is very substantial.  Before the Court may grant an extension of time, good grounds have to be shown by the applicant, bearing in mind that he has already had his day in court twice when he makes the present application.  The relevant factors in considering whether extension of time should be given are the length of the delay, the reason for the delay, the merits of the proposed appeal, and the prejudice to the other party.

1.5The notice of motion stated that :

‘ I would like to infomr the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL Information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim. Acual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The Officer and cours prefers to ignore the overwheming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betrary a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.’

1.6The applicant in his affirmation stated that the reason he was late in his application was because he was in prison.  No further explanation was provided as to what was he in prison for, or if there was any proof of such.  

1.7The applicant’s written submission lacked specificity and relevance.  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)  Legal principles

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)  Our view

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)  Disposition

4.For these reasons, we refuse to extend time and dismiss the notice of motion filed on 12 July 2019.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person