Akram Faisal v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non Refoulement Claims Petition Office

CAMP 354/2021

[2022] HKCA 224

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 354 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2742 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before: Hon Au and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions: 14 January 2022

Date of Judgment:  18 February 2022

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

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

1.On 23 November 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against Deputy High Court Judge To (“the Judge”)’s decision of 29 June 2021 refusing the Applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review of, inter alia, the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office (“the Board”) dated 23 October 2017.

2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 31 December 2021 seeking an order from the Court of Final Appeal that the CA Judgment be set aside.  The present application shall be treated as an application for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant makes some general complaints that the Court of Appeal erred in not finding that the Judge had failed to appreciate the significance of his non-refouelment claim, that the lack of provision of assistance to him was an error of law or procedural unfairness, and that there was a failure to adhere to a high standard of fairness.  He explains why he has failed to file the Notice of Motion within the stipulated time limit, and repeats his complaints about lack of language assistance, resulting in him being deprived of the right to make “full grounds for appeal”, as well as the absence of an oral hearing.

3.In the Applicant’s written submissions dated 14 January 2022, he complains that the Court of Appeal did not consider his grounds of appeal thoroughly, and seeks a reconsideration of his case based on unfairness and unreasonableness.  He also repeats his request for language and legal assistance.

4.The basic facts of the Applicant’s case and the reasons for refusing his application for an extension of time to appeal against the Judge’s decision of 29 June 2021 have been set out in the CA Judgment and shall not be repeated here.  The complaint about lack of language assistance was considered by this Court in paragraph 22 of the CA Judgment.  In relation to the complaint about the absence of an oral hearing, the Judge in fact heard the Applicant in person, while this Court’s decision to deal with the Applicant’s renewed application for an extension of time to appeal was pursuant to the direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeal dated 24 August 2021 and in accordance with the usual practice and procedure of the Court of Appeal.  There was nothing in the materials before the court to indicate that an oral hearing of the application was required.  The other complaints raised by the Applicant in support of the Notice of Motion plainly have no merits.  In this regard, it is important to bear in mind, as noted or recorded in the Judge’s Form CALL-1, that the Applicant himself applied to withdraw his appeal to the Board, and he had no complaint about the Board’s decision.

5.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.

6.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.  We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success.  There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

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

The Applicant, unrepresented, acted in person