Re Estalilla Federico Supsup

CACV 50/2021

[2021] HKCA 1131

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 50 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 454 of 2019)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Cheung and Chu JJA in Court

Date of Judgment:  6 August 2021

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.On 9 July 2021, this Court handed down our judgment[1] dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge C P Pang given on 26 January 2021 refusing his leave to apply for judicial review.    

2.On 9 July 2021, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  He has also put in a written submission on 20 July 2021 to support his application.

3.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.Under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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 Court of Final Appeal for decision.

6.The notice of motion stated the following as grounds of the application:

(1)  The applicant will be in grave danger if he returns to the Philippines.  He will lose his life.

(2)  The Torture Claims Appeal Board overlooked the situation or was misguided to believe that the Philippines actually practices the rule of law when in fact, the government will not protect him.

7.The applicant’s written submission is identical to the written submission lodged on 28 April 2021 in support of his appeal.  We had set out the arguments in [12] of our judgment, and we will not repeat them here.  

8.We are of the view that the matters advanced by the applicant do not constitute proper grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  Critically, they all relate to the circumstances of the applicant, and do not involve any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b).  Further, for the reasons we gave at [13] to [18] of our judgment, they are not reasonably arguable.    

9.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we refuse the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  Accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.