Re Sheik Razaul

CAMP 280/2019

[2021] HKCA 1212

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 280 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 162/2018)

-----------------------------------

Before: Hon Chu JA and Barma JA in Court

Date of Judgment: 26 August 2021

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 23 March 2021, this court (Lam VP and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam (“the judge”) on 25 June 2019 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the application, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1] We will not repeat them here.

3.The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 8 April 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“The [Director] cancel my claim. [The Board] too cancel my claim. The High Court refused my leave to apply for judicial review, timely I failed to appeal so the High Court and the Court of Appeal did not extend time, totally I did not get justice, I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.”

4.In the written submission filed on 24 May 2021, the applicant explained why it is unsafe for him to return.  He wanted his case to go to the Court of Final Appeal.

5.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.  

7.The applicant’s application before us was dismissed on the grounds that it was an abuse of process for him to bring a second application for judicial review when his first application had been dismissed and had not been appealed.  The matters stated in his Notice of Motion and written submissions do not engage with this court’s judgment at all.  He therefore did not advance any viable ground for his application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

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

9.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 8 April 2021 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person