Re Bahadur

CACV 479/2020

[2021] HKCA 1339

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 479 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 243 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Cheung JA and B Chu J in Court

Date of Decision:  17 September 2021

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court)  :

I.  Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal

1.On 10 June 2021, this Court (Cheung JA and B Chu J)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 30 June 2020 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.The facts and issues of the appeal as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it are set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

3.The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 23 June 2021, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his notice of motion that the Judge was not sympathetic to his situation.  He stated that he was detained in the Castle Peak Bay Immigration Centre when he first applied for judicial review.  He further stated that the staff there took away his letters and he had no letters when he left.  In short, these are background facts and are not grounds of appeal.

4.The applicant also lodged his written submissions.  He stated he did not understand legal procedures.  He stated that the system is convoluted.  He stated that country of origin information did not have the cultural context of India.  None of these are provided with particulars.  In any event, these are matters within the province of the Board.

II.  Legal principles

5.Under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484)  (‘Ordinance’)  leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

III.  Our view

6.The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance. Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion and written submissions. 

7.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance.

IV.  Disposition

8.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 23 June 2021 is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person