Re Francis, Michael Chidiebere

CACV 417/2019

[2020] HKCA 545

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 417 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1682/2018)

___________________________________

___________________________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

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

Introduction

1.On 7 May 2020, the Applicant applied by Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court (Lam V-P and M Ng J) of 23 April 2020.  In that judgment we dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock on 24 June 2019 refusing leave to apply for judicial review. 

2.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) at the discretion of this Court or the CFA 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 CFA for decision.

3.The Applicant set out the following matters in support of leave to appeal in his Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the CFA:

“ On 23^rd April 2020, the Honourable Judges of the High Court cancelled my leave to apply for judicial review against the Adjudicator of Torture Claims Appeal. I disagree with this judgement. I am not satisfied with the judges’ decisions, hence I am seeking permission to go to the Court of Final Appeal for a fair judgement. Please grant me chance.”

4.Notwithstanding the acknowledgment by the applicant on 7 May 2020 of the requirement under Practice Direction 2.1, he did not lodge any written submissions as directed under paragraph 3 of the Practice Direction.  The Court therefore processed the application on the papers based on materials already before us.

5.The Applicant has not raised any reasonably arguable ground for seeking leave to appeal, let alone any questions of great general or public importance or which otherwise ought to be submitted to the CFA for decision.

6.For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA.

7.We would dismiss the Applicant’s Notice of Motion.

The applicant acting in person