Re: Dhillon Sukhraj Singh Applicant

CACV 653/2020

[2021] HKCA 1944

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 653 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1556 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.This court (Yuen, G Lam JJA and Ng J)  handed down judgment on 6 July 2021 ([2021] HKCA 949)  dismissing the applicant’s appeal against an order of DHCJ P Li (“the Judge”)  given on 18 December 2020 refusing to give the applicant leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non-refoulement claim (“the Judge’s Decision”).

2.On 30 December 2020, the applicants filed a Notice of Appeal to appeal against the Judge’s Decision.  As mentioned earlier, in our judgment of 6 July 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 2 August 2021, the applicants filed a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal on the following grounds:

“I would like to infomr (sic)  the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL Information and my previous facts which were in favour while rejecting my claim. Actual life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL Information. The Officer and cours (sic)  prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betray a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.”

4.Pursuant to the directions given by Registrar of Civil Appeals on 2 August 2021 and Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 16 August 2021.  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 proceeded to determine this application on paper. 

5.In the applicant’s written submissions, he reiterated the background of his case, some articles under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap. 383), Basic Law and United Nations Convention Against Torture and lastly some general legal principles and cases on high standard of fairness and procedural fairness.  He did not explain and elaborate how the aforesaid is relevant or may assist his case.

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.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 2 August 2021 is dismissed.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person