Jagg Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office and Another
Read the full judgment text of CAMP 64A/2020 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 27 November 2020 before Kwan VP, Cheung JA and Barma JA.
Administrative law – non-refoulement claim – judicial review – leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal – whether question of great general or public importance – whether 'or otherwise' basis for leave – Indian national fearing harm by Congress Party supporter called Jageera – application one week late for extension of time to appeal – refusal of extension by Court of Appeal on ground of no prospect of success – whether grounds of procedural unfairness, irrationality, and protection of right to life under article 28 of the Basic Law disclose arguable appeal – Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance s.22(1)(b) – applicant acting in person – leave refused because grounds unsupported by evidence and no question of great general or public importance identified – Notice of Motion dismissed.
Legal issues: Whether leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal should be granted under s.22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance
Outcome: Application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal dismissed.
Cites 2 cases
|
CAMP 64/2020 [2020] HKCA 964 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 64 OF 2020 (ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1711 OF 2018) ________________________
________________________ Before: Hon Kwan VP, Cheung JA and Barma JA in Court Date of Written Submission: 16 November 2020 Date of Judgment: 27 November 2020 ____________________ J U D G M E N T ____________________ Hon Kwan VP (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.This is the applicant’s application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Kwan VP and Cheung JA) handed down on 23 October 2020 ([2020] HKCA 844) refusing to grant leave to appeal out of time against the judge’s decision dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review concerning his non‑refoulement claim. The applicant is a national of India. His claim was made on the basis that he would be harmed or killed by a supporter of the Congress Party called Jageera. He filed his Notice of Motion on 6 November 2020. 2.Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed on 9 November 2020 that the notice of motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing. The applicant lodged a written submission on 16 November 2020. Having considered the papers, we think it is appropriate to determine this application on paper and will proceed to do so. 3.The applicant took out a summons in the court below to seek an extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung. His application was late by one week. His application was refused by the judge on 19 June 2020[1]. The applicant renewed his application to the Court of Appeal for extension of time to appeal on 26 June 2020. 4.On 23 October 2020, the Court of Appeal refused to extend time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ K W Lung because the applicant does not have any prospect of success in the intended appeal. 5.In the Notice of Motion filed on 6 November 2020, the applicant set out his grounds of appeal as follows:
6.Under Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, 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. 7.The applicant has not shown any merits in his intended appeal as his grounds of appeal are not supported by evidence. In particular, he has not demonstrated any reasonably arguable basis that the Court of Appeal was wrong in dismissing his application. He has also failed to identify any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b). There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b). 8.For the above reasons, we dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on 6 November 2020 for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.
The Applicant, acting in person |