Re Akram Raja Noman

CACV 384/2019

[2020] HKCA 50

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 384 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 989 of 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.On 12 December 2019, this Court (Cheung and Chu JJA) handed down our judgment[1] dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam given on 2 August 2019 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On the same day (i.e. 12 December 2019), the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  Despite the directions of the Registrar for Civil Appals given on 13 December 2019, the applicant has not lodged a written submission to support his application.

3.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of his notice of motion.

4.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.

5.In the notice of motion, the applicant stated that he was dissatisfied with the dismissal of his appeal and wished to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  He said that the problem in his country was serious, and he was of the view that the Court of Final Appeal would grant him leave after seeing all his file.  

6.What the applicant put forward in the notice of motion do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  Importantly, the applicant has not identified any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b).  What was stated in the notice of motion only relates to the circumstances of the applicant’s case.    

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

8.In the circumstances, the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal is not met.  Accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.