Re Harpreet Singh

CACV 144/2020

[2021] HKCA 20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 144 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1608/2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Lam VP, Barma and Pang JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions:  20 November 2020

Date of Judgment:  11 January 2021

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 11 November 2020, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s judgment of 5 November 2020. In that judgment the Court (Lam VP and Pang JA) dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung on 22 May 2020 dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) at the discretion of this Court or the CFA if 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 CFA for decision.

3.In his Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the CFA, the Applicant stated that he cannot go back to his home country because the danger is still there for him.  However, he did not raise any specific grounds for leave to appeal.

4.Pursuant to the Court’s directions of 13 November 2020, the Applicant lodged his written submissions in support on 20 November 2020.  Those submissions are nearly identical to his previous written submissions in the substantive appeal, which had already been rejected for the reasons given in the judgment of 5 November 2020. 

5.The Applicant failed to engage with those reasons and has not raised any discernible or arguable ground for disturbing our judgment.  The matters raised in his Notice of Motion and his written submissions fail to pinpoint any specific error in our judgment or the judgment of the court below.

6.In the circumstances, we do not consider that there is any question of great general or public importance or which otherwise ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination. The threshold for granting of leave under Section 22(1)(b) is not satisfied.

7.For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA and dismiss the Applicant’s Notice of Motion.

The applicant acting in person