Re Pannu Gurpreet Singh

CACV 244/2019

[2020] HKCA 115

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 244 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 584/2018)

________________________

__________________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

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

1.On 9 September 2019, the Court (Lam VP and Bharwaney J) handed down a judgment ([2019] HKCA 1025) dismissing the applicants’ appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) dated 31 May 2019 ([2019] HKCFI 425). In the latter decision, the Judge refused leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.By a notice of motion filed on 20 September 2019, the applicant sought leave to appeal against the Court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  He stated in the notice of motion that he would not be safe in his own country and requested this Court to help him to stay in Hong Kong.

3.In his written submission lodged on 3 October 2019, the applicant alluded to the situation in India and asserted that he could not obtain any protection from the police there.

4.At [15] of the judgment, the Court explained that it was not the function of the court to assess a non-refoulement claim as if it were a primary decision-maker.  It was also explained at [16] that the Court had no power to grant a permission to remain.  There is no reasonably arguable basis to suggest that the Court was wrong in these respects.

5.The points raised by the applicant in the notice of motion and the written submission do not engage with the reasons in the judgment of 9 September 2019 and do not constitute any valid ground of appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 

6.We also cannot discern any question of great general or public importance in the applicant’s materials, as required under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484). Nor can we see any basis to grant leave on the “otherwise” limb.  Accordingly, the statutory thresholds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal are not met.

7.For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to the applicant to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  We dismiss the notice of motion accordingly.

The applicant acting in person