Re Sukhdev Singh

CACV 262/2020

[2021] HKCA 697

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 262 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1784/2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Lam VP, Yuen and Chu JJA in Court

Date of Judgment:  24 May 2021

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.On 11 March 2021, 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 March 2021. In that judgment we dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung on 30 June 2020.

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 does not want to go back to his country because his life would be in danger there, the problem is increasing in his country, and he would face hardship if he were to return.  The Applicant also stated that the Torture Claims Appeal Board significantly relied on the source of news which was not officially recognized.

4.Notwithstanding the acknowledgment by the Applicant on 11 March 2021 of the requirement under Practice Direction 2.1 and the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 15 and 30 March 2021, the Applicant did not lodge any written submissions in support of this application. 

5.The Applicant has not raised any reasonably arguable ground of appeal on the merit of his claim or any discernible or arguable ground for disturbing our judgment.  The matters raised in his Notice of Motion fail to pinpoint any error in our judgment.

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.

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