Re Bittu Singh

CAMP 42/2021

[2021] HKCA 1772

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 42 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 201/2017)

____________________

____________________

Before:  Hon Chu JA and Barma JA in Court

Date of Judgment:  1 December 2021

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 20 March 2018, DHCJ Bruno Chan refused leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review (HCAL201/2017; [2018] HKCFI 622). The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 7 April 2017 dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decisions of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) dated 24 June 2016 and 26 January 2017 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.

2.The applicant was late in bringing his intended appeal.  His application for extension of time to appeal was dismissed by the judge on 26 March 2019 ([2019] HKCFI 419) and his renewed application to this court was dismissed by this court on 8 December 2020 (CAMP 87/2019; [2020] HKCA 997).

3.On 5 February 2021, the applicant took out a summons in CAMP 42/2021 purportedly for an intended appeal from the judgment in HCAL 201/2017.  The summons stated that:

“The High Court judge judgment is not reliable. He could not show any good cause to refused my leave, he only copy adjudicator decision. He should give his own judgment”

4.In the affirmation filed on the same day, the applicant deposed that:

“Affirmation for extension of time to appeal against the decision of the High Court judge. Because my time to apply was over and I want to challenge the judge judgment.”

5.On 23 March 2021, the Registrar of Civil Appeals directed (among other things) that:

“…

4. As the Court of Appeal has already dismissed the Applicant’s summons for extension of time to appeal against the Decision on 8 December 2020 in CAMP87/2019, the Summons seeks to re-litigate the same matter and is liable to be struck out as an abuse of process.

5. If the Applicant does not agree, he may on or before 7 April 2021 lodge his written submissions stating why the Summons should not be struck out...”

6.The applicant did not lodge the written submission as directed.  Like the Registrar, we are of the view that this application is clearly an abuse of process, as it seeks to re-litigate the same matter as in CAMP 87/2019.

7.The summons of 5 February 2021 is dismissed accordingly. 

The applicant acting in person