Re Md Sarif

CACV 419/2019

[2020] HKCA 628

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 419 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 603 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before :  Hon Cheung JA, Toh and Lisa Wong JJ in Court

Date of Decision :  28 July 2020

____________________

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

1.1On 16 April 2020, this Court handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam given on 9 August 2019 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review (‘Decision of the Judge’).

1.2The 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.

1.3The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion dated 11 May 2020, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

1.4The applicant’s notice of motion contained grounds which were generally undecipherable.  From a best reading effort, it seems that the applicant disagreed that his grounds for application do not have substance.  He stated that he did not complain about a lack of legal representation before the Board due to his fear of being picked out.  He complained that he did not have time to deal with the bundle before the Board.

1.5The applicant’s supporting affirmation stated that the Court was wrong in holding there was no state acquiescence, and was wrong in failing to find details of the situation in Bangladesh.  The applicant exhibited copies of previous court documents.

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

3.1The 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 matters contained in the notice of motion are bare allegations without particulars or explanation.  The matters contained in the applicant’s affirmation are, again, bare allegations without particulars or explanation.  The applicant has not provided written submissions.  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 supporting affirmation.

3.2We 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 11 May 2020 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person