Re Hussain Zubair

CAMP 188/2019

[2020] HKCA 388

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 188 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 40 of 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Cheung, Chu and Barma JJA in Court

Date of Judgment:  3 June 2020

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.On 22 January 2020, this Court (Chu and Barma JJA) handed down our judgment[1] refusing to give leave to the applicant to appeal out of time against the decision of Campbell-Moffat J given on 30 April 2019 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.     

2.On the same day, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant also put in a written submission to support his application.

3.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission, 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 the documents in the case.

4.The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.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.

6.The notice of motion did not set out any proposed grounds of appeal.  It only indicated that the applicant would submit his grounds in his written submission.     

7.In the written submission, the applicant complained that the Director of immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board had not properly investigated his case or considered his education, political and economic status.  He also said that the interpreter(s) did not fully and properly interpret what he said, and he was not provided with a lawyer in relation to the second decision made by the Director.  He further claimed he had political problem in his country and his political enemy would kill him if he were to return to his home country.     

8.We are of the view that the points and arguments advanced by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  They relate only to the circumstances of the applicant, and do not involve any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b).  Further, as pointed out in [15] of our judgment, it is not open to the applicant to raise the complaints against the Director or the Board as they had not been argued in the court below.   

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

10.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.  

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.