Chetry Gokul v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CAMP 77/2020

[2020] HKCA 967

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 77 OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 732 OF 2017)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Kwan VP, Cheung JA and Chu JA in Court

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 Chu JA) handed down on 30 October 2020 ([2020] HKCA 873) refusing to grant leave to appeal out of time against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock 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 members of a terrorist group called the United Liberation Front of Assam if he were to return to India because he refused to join them. He filed his Notice of Motion on 4 November 2020.

2.Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed on 6 November 2020 that the applicant should lodge written submissions in support of his Notice of Motion on or before 18 November 2020 and that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing upon compliance with the direction or the expiry of the time for the compliance of the direction.  The applicant did not lodge any written submission as directed.  As the time for the compliance with the said direction has expired, we would determine this application without a hearing on the basis of the documents filed in court.

3.The applicant took out a summons in the court below to seek an extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ Woodcock. His application was late by nearly fifteen months.  His application was refused by Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung on 26 June 2020^[1]. He renewed his application to the Court of Appeal for extension of time to appeal on 2 July 2020.

4.On 30 October 2020, the Court of Appeal refused to extend time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ Woodcock because the applicant does not have any prospect of success in the intended appeal.

5.In the Notice of Motion filed on 4 November 2020, the applicant set out the following grounds of appeal:

(1)  The judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of procedural unfairness to the decision of the Director of Immigration, by which the Director and the Adjudicator of the Torture Claims Appeal Board are required to give reasons justifying their decisions.

(2)  The judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decisions made by the Director and the Adjudicator.

(3)  His life is in danger in his country so he cannot take a risk of his life.  The actual condition is different from the situation mentioned in the country of origin information.  The officers and courts prefer to ignore the overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities, searching for unrealistic silver lining.

(4)  The judges did not apply the law properly.

6.Under Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, 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 lacking in particulars and 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 4 November 2020 for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

The Applicant, acting in person.