Re Mohammed Shanwaz

CACV 548/2019

[2020] HKCA 625

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 548 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2822 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before :  Hon Cheung, Chu JJA and G Lam J 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 13 May 2020, this Court (Cheung JA and G Lam J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K. W. Lung given on 27 November 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 27 May 2020, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

1.4In the applicant’s notice of motion, the applicant complained that there was a failure to adhere to high standards of fairness as the Court failed to appreciate the significance of his case. The applicant focused his argument on lack of language assistance from the Court, including not having translated copies of documents or documents being read back to him, or that all along he was unaware of what was happening because of lack of language assistance. All of this lacks any meaningful particulars.

1.5The applicant provided written submissions that also focused on complaints about lack of language assistance from the Court, and hence it was procedurally unfair.

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 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.

3.2The applicant did not provide any particulars about any misunderstanding of court procedures or mis-translation of his material. The high standard of fairness required by law would not entail an interpretation service to be made available at any time as the applicant desired. It is further noted that all court documents were written in English, indicating either that the applicant is familiar with the English language or that he had means and access to such language assistance as he needed: Re Gurnishan Singh [2018] HKCA 704 at para 13.

3.3We 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 27 May 2020 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person