Rahman Majibar v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

CAMP 82/2019

[2019] HKCA 1279

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 82 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 151 OF 2017)

________________________

________________________

Before: Hon Kwan VP, Yuen JA and Chu JA in Court

Date of Written Submission: 10 October 2019

Date of Judgment: 15 November 2019

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.This is the applicant’s application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal handed down on 9 September 2019 ([2019] HKCA 985) dismissing his application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock on 22 September 2017 refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review concerning his non-refoulement claim.

2.In the Notice of Motion filed on 10 September 2019, the applicant stated that:

(1)  The judgment was wrong in deciding that there is no substance in the grounds of the application.

(2)  He did not complain about the poor performance of his duty lawyer because he feared that he would be picked out for “misappropriating” by the adjudicator.

(3)  He did not have enough time to address the hearing bundle.

3.He set out the following grounds in his affirmation:

(1)  The judges were wrong in law in holding that there was no state acquiescence or involvement.

(2)  The judges also failed to find out the clear details of the current situation of Bangladesh.

4.The contentions in his written submissions may be summarized as follows:

(1)  High standards of fairness are required in torture claims.  The adjudicator failed to scrutinize the Director but simply tried to see whether he could find fault with the decision of the Director and did not consider the conditions of the country of origin. 

(2)  Minimum standards of procedural fairness are required in the decision-making process.  The decision-maker is under a duty to act fairly.

5.Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals directed on 24 September 2019 that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  The applicant lodged his written submission on 10 October 2019.  We shall determine this application on paper accordingly.

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.The applicant’s grounds of appeal and submission are just bare assertions without particulars or evidence in support.  They do not constitute valid grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. He has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b).  There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.For the above reasons, we dismiss the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

The Applicant, acting in person