Re Md Azizul Islam

CACV 194/2019

[2019] HKCA 1299

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 194 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 722 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Au JA, G Lam and Lisa Wong JJ in Court

Date of Written Submissions:  15 October 2019

Date of Judgment:  22 November 2019

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon G Lam J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 30 August 2019, this court (Au JA, G Lam and Lisa Wong JJ) dismissed the applicant’s appeal (see [2019] HKCA 993) (“the Judgment”) against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 12 April 2019, refusing leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.The applicant subsequently applied, by Notice of Motion dated 12 September 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“ -  The claims that the Judgment has made stated is no subst. in the grounds of the applicant is not true.

-  On the strength of the grounds not made a complain about the poor performance of his duty lawyer is out of fearing he will be picked out for misappropriation by the adjudicator.

-  The applicant gently did not have enough time to address the bundle.  Rest of the grounds, I will submit as soon as possible.” [sic]

3.The applicant lodged written submissions in support of his application on 15 October 2019.  We see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on paper.

4.In an affirmation (mis-dated 12 August 2019) filed on 12 September 2019, the applicant stated that this Court erred in law in holding that there was no state acquiescence or involvement and failed to find out the details of the current situation in Bangladesh, which is, mutatis mutandis, identical to his affirmation filed with his Notice of Appeal before us: see para 10 of the Judgment.  In the first six pages of his written submissions, the applicant cited a number of provisions of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap 383), the Basic Law of the Hong Kong SAR and the United Nations Convention Against Torture.  He then quoted certain passages from a number of cases which touched on the various questions of understanding of country conditions, oral hearing, medical and psychological reports, and the principles relating to the approach to a delayed application for judicial review.  But he did not explain how these provisions and passages from the cases apply in the present case or give rise to any question for determination by the Court of Final Appeal.  In the next four pages of his written submissions the applicant simply reproduced verbatim the skeleton submissions dated 29 July 2019 filed for the appeal before us, which we dealt with at [21]-[23] of the Judgment.

5.In our view, the matters stated by the applicant in his Notice of Motion, affirmation and written submissions do not constitute proper 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 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.  The issues of the duty lawyer’s performance and whether the applicant had sufficient time to consider the hearing bundle were not advanced before this court and provide no basis for challenging the Judgment.  The applicant has failed to identify any error in the Judgment.  There is no reasonably arguable issue for decision by the Court of Final Appeal.

6.We cannot see any basis for granting leave to appeal on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

7.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

Written submissions by the applicant, acting in person