Jaswinder Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

CAMP 239/2021

[2022] HKCA 30

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 239 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 947 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before: Hon G Lam and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions: 29 December 2021

Date of Judgment: 10 January 2022

____________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

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

1.On 12 October 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s renewed application for an extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) dated 12 March 2021 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office / Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 16 May 2018.

2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 15 December 2021 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant complains that the Judge failed to consider all applicable grounds for non-refoulement, was wrong to accept the adjudicator’s finding that he faced no risk of any harm should he return to India, and the Judge’s decision was irrational.

3.In his written submissions dated 29 December 2021, the Applicant sets out some general principles of public law in relation to non-refoulement claims.

4.Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal 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.

5.No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal. There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

6.Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, acting in person