Re Lama Prem Kumar

CACV323/2020

[2021] HKCA 1512

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 323 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2418/2018)

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

Before: Hon Barma JA and Au JA in Court

Date of Judgment: 29 October 2021

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 21 May 2021, this court (Barma JA and Au JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the judge”) on 22 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 27 May 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“I would like to reject and review the decision made by the [the Board]. They disregard my situations. I understand I did not submit the skeleton argument and so my chance of oral hearing was revoked. But it was because I do not understand the system and therefore I do not know I need to submit the skeleton argument and what it is.”

4.The applicant failed to comply with Practice Direction 2.1 and did not lodge the skeleton submission within time, despite having been reminded of the same by the direction made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 28 May 2021.  The applicant was therefore debarred from lodging any written submissions and the application was dealt with on paper on the basis of the materials already filed before the court.

5.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, 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 claimed that he did not lodge written submission for the appeal before us because he did not understand the law.  Be that as it may, ignorance of the law is not a reasonable excuse and in any event, the applicant did not identify the arguments he wished to make in an oral hearing before this court.

8.The Notice of Motion does not identify any supposed error in our judgment and it raises no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

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

10.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 27 May 2021 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person