Re Thing Bijay

CACV 345/2019

[2020] HKCA 215

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 345 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1586 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1)  Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal

1.1.On 10 December 2019, this Court (Cheung and Au JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung given on 17 July 2019 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

1.2.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.  We will not repeat them here.

1.3.The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion dated 13 December 2019, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  We will deal with the application on paper.

1.4.The applicant states in the notice of motion that he needs more time to stay in Hong Kong to solve his problems and he cannot go home at the moment because of the danger there.

1.5.In his written submission, the applicant states various matters, including that the decision maker had ignored the facts of his case, the risk of torture in his home country, state acquiescence, his enemies are still looking for him and the lack of personal safety in his home country.

2)  Legal principles

2.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

3)  Our view

3.1.The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO. Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion and written submissions.

3.2.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

4)  Disposition

4.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 13 December 2019 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person