Re Darboe Lansana

CACV 294/2020

[2021] HKCA 1329

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 294 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 992/2018)

____________________

____________________

Before:  Hon Barma JA and ST Poon J in Court

Date of Judgment:  24 September 2021

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 15 March 2021, this court (Barma JA and ST Poon J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the judge”) on 14 July 2020 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 decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, 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 21 May 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal out of time.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“…I am late for apply due to lack of knowledge and insufficient sources. Please accept my filing application so that I can process my case further. I hope I will get your favour.”

4.In the affirmation filed on 21 May 2021, the applicant reiterated the matters raised in the Notice of Motion.

5.The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 2 June 2021.  In the written submission, the applicant explained why it is unsafe for him to return.  He also identified a number of alleged mistakes made by the Board.  He claimed that he was not satisfied with all of the decisions against him because they ignored many things related to his case and those decisions were not transparent.

6.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, affirmation 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.

7.We are of the view that the applicant has not provided any reasonable explanation for his delay in bringing the intended appeal.  The applicant simply claimed that he was late because he lacked knowledge and “sources” but he did not provide any particulars.  We nonetheless go on to consider the merits of the intended appeal.

8.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.  

9.The applicant claimed that all of the decisions against him ignored certain things related to his case and they lacked transparency.  However, this bare assertion is not supported by any particulars and they do not engage our reasons for dismissing the appeal in [12] – [19] of our judgment.  The applicant has therefore failed to raise any ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

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

11.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 21 May 2021 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person