Re Preety Pal Singh (Alias Pretty Pal Singh)

CACV 171/2019

[2019] HKCA 1338

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 171 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 907 OF 2018)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Wong J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.This Court (Chu JA and Wong J) gave Judgment on 21 October 2019 dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam (“the Judge”) given on 4 April 2019 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review concerning his non‑refoulement claim.  The facts and issues in the appeal before the Court of Appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our Judgment and will not be repeated here.

2.The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion dated 23 October 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  On 29 October 2019, the Registrar of Civil Appeals directed the applicant to lodge written submissions by 6 November 2019 and if there is written submission in opposition by the party / parties who has / have been served with the Notice of Motion it be filed within 14 days after having been served with the submission.

3.The Registrar had further directed that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  We agree it is appropriate to determine this application on paper.

4.The applicant filed a written submission on 4 November 2019.  No submission in opposition has been filed.

5.In his Notice of Motion, the applicant stated he wants to stay here and asked for further processing of his application because he has problem in his own country and cannot go back.

6.The main points which the applicant stated in his submission which the court received on 4 November 2019 may be summarised as follows:

(a)     His life is not safe in his country because of some powerful people, he is helpless to face them;

(b)     He cannot hide himself from these people, if he goes back to his country, he may be killed or tortured by them, these people are still looking for him;

(c)     Nobody dares to stand by him and talk to these people;

(d)     His enemies are too powerful and he has no resource to protect himself;

(e)     He wants to stay in Hong Kong until his problem is solved;

(f)     Death and torture of innocent people during police custody are common and those people responsible for this are not held accountable since they are in power; and

(g)     Culprits of crime are not brought to justice since they can bribe the police.

7.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance[1] provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be granted at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal if the question in the appeal involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

8.No question of great general or public importance has been identified in the grounds in the Notice of Motion and the subsequent written submission.

9.Nor do we see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).  The role of the Court of Appeal in an appeal of this nature was clearly set out in our judgment.[2] The applicant is simply repeating in his written submission matters he had raised before the Judge.  An appeal against the refusal of leave to judicial review by a judge in the Court of First instance is not an occasion for regurgitating arguments advanced and rejected by the judge.  The judge has carefully considered the matters and no fault of his consideration and decision can be found.

10.The overall observation of the Judge was that the applicant’s case is not reasonably arguable and there is no realistic prospect of success in an application for judicial review.  We agreed to this observation.

11.In the circumstances, we cannot find any basis for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

12.By virtue of the above, the Notice of Motion dated 23 October 2019 is dismissed.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person