Case Document

100%Judiciary

CACV 566/2018

[2019] HKCA 1156

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 566 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 327/2018)

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

RE:

MUNNA MOHAMMAD

Applicant

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

Before:

Hon Barma JA, Au JA and G Lam J in Court

Date of Judgment:

25 October 2019

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 2 May 2019, this court (Barma JA and G Lam J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam (“the judge”) on 21 November 2018 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1] We will not repeat them here.

3.The applicant subsequently applied, by a notice of motion dated 21 June 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“It is very very unfortunate that the [Court of Appeal] refused my objection, my argument against [the Board] and Director of Immigration is legal. Illegally they refused my claim non-refoulement claim. I hope and pray you will give me proper chance of Court of Final Appeal”

4.In the affirmation dated 21 June 2019, the applicant deposed that:

“Affirmation for my Court of Appeal decision given by honourable judge of the high court. But I did not get it. I came high court and withdraw. So I am late, all my statements are true.”

5.Because the applicant failed to comply with the unless order made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 27 June 2019, the applicant was debarred from lodging any written submissions and the application was dealt with on paper on the basis of the materials already filed before the court.

6.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and affirmation, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers. We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the notice of motion and affirmation.

7.The matters stated by the applicant in the notice of motion and affirmation do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal 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, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484. Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in the notice of motion and affirmation.

8.The applicant failed to identify any ground of appeal. He simply claimed it was illegal for this court to dismiss his appeal without giving any particulars. In our view, this ground is clearly not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

9.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 21 June 2019 is dismissed.