Re Amienghemhen Ayere Precious

CAMP 113/2019

[2020] HKCA 760

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 113 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 659 OF 2017)

________________________

________________________

Before : Hon Cheung, Yuen and Au JJA in Court

Date of Decision : 10 September 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

1.1.On 28 October 2019, this Court (Cheung and Au JJA) gave the decision dismissing the applicant’s renewed application for an extension of time to appeal (‘extension decision’) against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock given on 17 July 2018 in which she refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

1.2.The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 7 July 2020, for leave to appeal against our extension decision to the Court of Final Appeal.  We will deal with the application on paper.

1.3.In the notice of motion, the applicant stated that ‘the use of all applicable grounds is not clearly explained to me’.  The case was complicated.  He was denied a hearing by the Board.  He was late to appeal against the decision because he had an accident before the virus problem happened.  He repeated in his affidavit that the delay was caused by the accident.

1.4.Contrary to the Registrar of Civil Appeals’ directions of 8 July 2020, the applicant did not lodge any written submission in support of his notice of motion by the stipulated deadline.

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 affidavit 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 documents.

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 filed on 7 July 2020 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person