Re Kps

CAMP 41/2020

[2021] HKCA 1053

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 41 OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 62 OF 2016)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.By a judgment dated 15 April 2021 ([2021] HKCA 442), this Court (Yeung VP and Chu JA) refused to grant an extension of time to the applicant to apply for leave to appeal against the decision of DHCJ Marlene Ng (as she then was) (“the Judge”) given on 5 March 2018 in HCAL 62/2016 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review. The applicant sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) given on 4 March 2016 dismissing his petition/appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”) given on 22 December 2014 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.By a notice of motion dated 4 May 2021, the applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the grounds that:

“I would like to inform to Court of Final Appeal. There is some error in law in my decision. I totally disagree with the decision authorities and court because they were totally relied on news and post on web which is not real mater in actual. Because its toward to my life in my home land in India. I do not wish to go back to India because my life in danger in my home country in India.”

3.In compliance with the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 5 May 2021, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 14 May 2021. 

4.In his written submissions, the applicant advanced the following grounds:

(1)  He disagrees with the decisions made by the Director and the Board as they were not determined fairly.

(2)  He did not understand the decisions and judgment made in his case and there is no assistance on that.

(3)  There is a lack of legal and language assistance and it is procedural unfairness.

(4)  The authorities should take into account the procedural unfairness that there is a policy to dispose the non-refoulement claim as quickly as possible.  It is unacceptable and against the spirit of judicial system.

(5)  He was not fully informed of his rights and given the opportunity to be heard with the necessary assistance.

5.The Registrar further directed that unless the court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on papers. As it is appropriate to do so, this application is processed on papers without an oral hearing.

6.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 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.In our view, the grounds set out in the notice of motion and the written submissions were vague and general assertions without any basis.  They did not pinpoint any error or raise any discernible ground to reverse our judgement.  Further the complaints on the lack of legal and language assistance are new grounds which were not advanced and canvassed before the Judge nor before this Court and we will not entertain the news grounds which are devoid of merit in any event.   Accordingly, the applicant’s intended appeal is unarguable and bound to fail.

8.For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 15 April 2021, we do not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s decision and order.  None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion and the written submissions involves an arguable point or a question of great general or public importance.  We do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) either.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is not met.

9.Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.