Re Tahir Muhammad

CACV 145/2021

[2021] HKCA 1749

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 145 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2186 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

Before:  Hon Au JA and Lisa Wong J in Court

Date of Judgment: 29 November 2021

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Au JA (giving the judgment of the court):

1.On 8 October 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s (Au JA and Lisa Wong J) judgment of 27 September 2021 (“the Judgment”) ([2021] HKCA 1417). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 24 August 2020 refusing to grant to the applicant leave to apply for judicial review ([2020] HKCFI 2063).

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

3.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this Court or the Court of Final Appeal 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.

4.In his Notice of Motion, the applicant did not give any viable grounds of appeal and only asserted that he wanted to go to the Court of Final Appeal as the Court of First Instance dismissed his application for leave to apply for judicial review and this Court dismissed his appeal.

5.In his written submissions lodged on 22 October 2021, the applicant asserted that since he could not quit his drinking habit which was prohibited in Muslim religion, some Muslim fundamentalists and extremists wanted to kill him.  He asserted that his claim was real and he faced a real threat and as nobody could safe him he fled.

6.In our view, the applicant’s application is wholly without merit.  None of the matters raised in his Notice of Motion or written submissions identified any specific errors in the Judgment.  They are therefore not viable grounds.  General assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute viable grounds.  The applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

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

8.By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion filed on 8 October 2021 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person