Re Pardeep Singh

CACV 176/2021

[2021] HKCA 1878

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 176 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1357 OF 2018)

__________________________

__________________________

Before:  Hon Yuen and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions: 17 September 2021

Date of Judgment:  15 December 2021

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

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

1.This court (Yuen and Chow JJA) handed down judgment on 24 August 2021 ([2021] HKCA 1234) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against an order of DHCJ K W Lung (“the Judge”) given on 8 April 2021 refusing to give the applicant leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non‑refoulement claim (“the Judge’s Decision”).

2.On 19 April 2021, the applicant had filed a Notice of Appeal to appeal against the Judge’s Decision.  As mentioned earlier, in our judgment of 24 August 2021, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal.  The facts and issues in the appeal before this court, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.On 3 September 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal on the following grounds:

“With due respect and humble submissions I beg to you that I couldn’t accept the decision which was made by Judge on 24 August 2021 in the Appeal Division because decision maker followed and relied just a simple hearsay. This decision make me irrational of my life and disappointed me about my life security. That decision was unfair and reflected my appeal for the leave to be granted. Other grounds are written on the Annex-A.”

4.In compliance with the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals made on 3 September 2021 and Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 17 September 2021.  In his written submissions, he advanced the following:

(1)  The present ruling party BJP did not allow the applicant to voice his political opinion and even wanted to kill him.  It was lucky for him to have escaped to Hong Kong.

(2)  The Director and the Board rejected the applicant’s claim as he failed to substantiate his case with evidence but he had severe problem and his problem still exists in India.

(3)  The applicant faces serious risk of life in his home country and he will be killed by his enemy if refouled.  He is a genuine non-refoulement claimant but he was unable to bring any document to support his claim, though he submitted some to the Immigration Department.

(4)  The Director and the Board failed to scrutinize his case properly, otherwise his case would be established.

(5)  The decision has significant implication on the applicant’s substantive right not to be subject to torture and his right to non-refoulement protection and it made him liable to be removed from Hong Kong.

(6)  The Judge was wrong as a matter of law for failing to apply the principle of irrationality to the Director’s and the Board’s decisions.

(7)  High standard of fairness are required in determination of torture claims but the Judge reviewed the matter lightly.

(8)  The Judge was wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of procedural unfairness to the Director’s and the Board’s decisions whereby the Director and the Board were required to give reasons to justify their decisions.

(9)  Despite the applicant’s severe problems in his home country and he had submitted all the proofs, the Judge “may not be” greater care and disappointed him.

(10)  The Judge might not analyse the applicant’s claim properly in his home country.

(11)  The Judge might not have received the applicant’s claim for what had been refused by the Director and the Board.

(12)  The Board failed to give sufficient chance to the applicant to arrange relevant evidence for his claim and the appeal.

(13)  Life and limb are in jeopardy and it involved the applicant’s fundamental human right not to be subject to torture for which high standards of fairness are required.

(14)  The applicant will face hardship if refouled and the Board had significantly relied on the source of news which is not officially recognised, or is simply hearsay.

(15)  The applicant faces a serious threat of his life in his home country.  His enemy is still looking for him and he would be killed if refouled.

(16)  The applicant would be safe if he stayed in Hong Kong.  He was tortured in India and the court needs to scrutinize his problem.

5.The Registrar further directed that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  As it is appropriate to do so, we proceed to determine this application on paper. 

6.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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.

7.None of the matters mentioned in the Notice of Motion and the written submissions identified any error of law or raised any discernible grounds to reverse our judgement.  Having regard to the judgment of this court, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merits.  No question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by s.22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.    

8.Nor do we see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion filed on 3 September 2021 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person