Re Saidy Duta

CAMP 221/2020

[2021] HKCA 1204

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 221 OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 360 of 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Chu and M Poon JJA in Court

Date of Judgment:  20 August 2021

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.On 23 July 2021, this Court (Yeung VP and Chu JA)  handed down our judgment[1] refusing to extend the time for the applicant to appeal against the decision of Campbell-Moffat J given on 7 August 2020 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.    

2.On 2 August 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 9 August 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 did not set out any specific grounds in support of the application.  The applicant only stated that he has problem in his country and he cannot go back at this moment because there is still danger.  He asked for more time and to stay in Hong Kong so that he can solve his problem.  The notice of motion, however, did not set out any proposed ground of appeal.   

7.The applicant’s written submission raised the following points:

(1)  He will be in danger if he returns to his country at this point.  He needs some time to solve his problem.

(2)  Many things related to his case had been ignored.  The situation in his country is very different from what people think.

(3)  Torture and deaths of innocent people in police custody are common place.  There are many examples of these on the internet.

(4)  People who were prepared to be witnesses and stand up against them would disappear or be killed by unknown people.  It is very difficult to get justice in such corrupt environment.

(5)  People like him do not have strength to stand up against their enemies who can bribe or use political influence on the police and “law making authorities”.

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 [21] 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.