Re Harjeet Pal

CAMP 35/2019

[2019] HKCA 1217

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 35 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1123 OF 2017)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Yeung VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.By a judgment dated 14 August 2019 ([2019] HKCA 858), the Court of Appeal refused to grant an extension of time for the applicant to appeal against the decision of Campbell-Moffat J (“the Judge”) dated 12 October 2018 in HCAL 1123/2017 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.By a notice of motion dated 18 August 2019, the applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the grounds that:

“Please allow me for further process of my case. Before I was late due to lack of knowledge and insufficient of sources. Please give me permission to apply further process my case. I will be grateful to you for your kind support towards me.”

3.Pursuant to the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 20 August 2019, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 2 September 2019.  He reiterated that he would face risk of torture or even killed by his powerful enemies if refouled as the Indian police and the authorities would not protect ordinary people like him.  He further alleged that it was not possible for him to hide from his enemies anywhere in his country.

4.The Registrar further directed that unless the court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  As it is appropriate to do so, this application is processed on paper without an oral hearing.

5.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted if 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.  Here, the applicant merely regurgitated his arguments which were canvassed and duly rejected by the court in [15] and [16] of our judgment.  None of the matters raised in the notice of motion and the written submissions can constitute valid ground of appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 

6.For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 14 August 2019, we do not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s decision and order.  None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion and his written submissions involves an arguable point or a question of great general or public importance.  We do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) either.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is not met.

7.Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person