Re Mohammad Javed
Read the full judgment text of CACV 579/2019 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 16 July 2020.
1. Before the court is a notice of motion filed on 8 June 2020 by the abovenamed applicant, applying for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) against this court’s judgment dated 4 June 2020 ( [2020] HKCA 430 ) (“Judgment”), dismissing the applicant’s appeal from a decision dated 11 December 2019 ( [2019] HKCFI 2587 ) by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan, refusing him leave to apply for judicial review of the decision dated 5 June 2018 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”)
Cites 2 cases
|
CACV 579/2019 [2020] HKCA 580 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL CIVIL APPEAL NO 579 OF 2019 (ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1231/2018) ____________________
____________________ Before: Hon Kwan VP, Yuen JA and Lisa Wong J in Court Date of Written Submission: 18 June 2020 Date of Judgment: 16 July 2020 _______________ JUDGMENT _______________ Hon Lisa Wong J (giving the Judgment of the Court): Application 1.Before the court is a notice of motion filed on 8 June 2020 by the abovenamed applicant, applying for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) against this court’s judgment dated 4 June 2020 ([2020] HKCA 430) (“Judgment”), dismissing the applicant’s appeal from a decision dated 11 December 2019 ([2019] HKCFI 2587) by Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan, refusing him leave to apply for judicial review of the decision dated 5 June 2018 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) concerning his non-refoulement claim. Paper disposal appropriate 2.Pursuant to the direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeals (“Registrar”), unless this court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing. We agree with the Registrar that a paper disposal is appropriate in this case. Statutory threshold for leave to appeal to the CFA 3.Under s 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484), an appeal shall lie to the CFA at the discretion of the Court of Appeal (“CA”) or the CFA from any civil judgment of the CA 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. Applicant’s contentions in support of leave to appeal to CFA 4.In seeking leave to appeal to the CFA, the applicant asserted in the notice of motion as follows (sic):
5.Pursuant to paragraph 1 of the Registrar’s directions dated 9 June 2020, on 18 June 2020, the applicant filed the following written submission in support of the notice of motion (sic):
The above written submission is identical to that filed on 7 May 2020 in support of the appeal against the refusal of leave to apply for judicial review. Discussion 6.The applicant has plainly not raised any issue for determination by the CFA, whether of great, general or public importance or otherwise. 7.Nor do we see any scope to grant leave under the “or otherwise” limb. 8.Neither the notice of motion nor the applicant’s written submission has really engaged the reasons given in the Judgment. As noted in [11] and [21] of the Judgment, after hearing the applicant, the Board assessed the risk facing him in Pakistan to be low, especially if he stays away from his home village. The applicant’s repeated bare assertions in his notice of motion and written submission that his life will be endangered if he is refouled to Pakistan contradicts such finding of fact. He has however not articulated any errors of law, procedural unfairness or irrationality by the Board, which rendered such finding unsafe. 9.As neither of the statutory criteria under s 22(1)(b) for leave to appeal to the CFA is met, we dismiss the notice of motion.
The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person |
Cases cited in this judgment
Further hearings and rulings under CACV 579/2019