Re Sukhdeep Singh

CAMP 146/2020

[2021] HKCA 1121

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 146 OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1124 OF 2017)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Yeung VP and Chu JA in Court

Date of Written Submissions:  6 July 2021

Date of Judgment:  10 August 2021

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.By a judgment dated 10 June 2021 ([2021] HKCA 793), 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 Campbell-Moffat J (“the Judge”)  given on 12 October 2018 in HCAL 1124/2017 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant sought to review the decisions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”)  given on 5 June 2015 and 3 November 2017 dismissing his petition/appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“the Director”)  given on 29 September 2014 and 13 February 2017 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.By a notice of motion dated 21 June 2021, the applicant now seeks leave to appeal our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal on the following grounds:

“With due respect and humble submissions, I beg to you that I couldn’t accept the Judgment which was made on 21 May 2021 by the Judge in the Appeal Division (Summons)  of the High Court, because the decision maker relied just a simple hearsay. This decision is unfair and reflected my application for the extension of time to appeal. This decision make me irrational in my life disappointed me about my life safety in my home country. The Honourable Judge also failed to find out the applicant’s current situation of India.”

3.In compliance with the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 21 June 2021 and Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 6 July 2021.  

4.In his written submissions, he claimed that he would face risk of harm and torture and may even be killed if he were to return to India.  He further advanced the following grounds:

i.  The Director and the Board did not scrutinize and analyse his claim properly.[1]

ii.  The Board failed to give sufficient chance to him to arrange evidence and significantly relied on sources of news which is not officially recognized or is simply hearsay.[2]

iii.  The Judge failed to analyse the applicant’s claim properly and was wrong as a matter of law for not applied the principle of irrationality and procedural unfairness in reviewing the Director’s and the Board’s decisions.[3]

iv.  The Judge failed to adhere to the high standards of fairness and determined his case lightly.[4]

v.  Despite he had submitted all the proofs in support of his case, the Judge did not assess them with great care.  The Judge’s decision was wrong and unfair.[5]

5.The Registrar further directed that unless the court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on papers only without an oral hearing.  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 judgment, the grounds of complaints as set out in the notice of motion and written submissions were vague and general, and without basis and support.   The applicant did not pinpoint any error or raise any discernible grounds of appeal to reverse our judgment and his intended appeal is bound to fail.  As explained at [22] of our judgment, the applicant’s case was rejected by the Board that even on his own evidence, the land dispute was private in nature and the alleged harm inflicted on him did not attain the minimum level of severity and that he failed to establish his case on all applicable grounds.  We found no basis to intervene the Board’s decision which was well justified.

8.For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 10 June 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.