Re Sidibe Harouna

CAMP 180/2019

[2022] HKCA 581

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 180 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 451 OF 2017)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

Before: Hon Barma JA and Au JA in Court

Date of Judgment: 6 May 2022

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 31 May 2021, this court (Yeung VP and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time for leave to appeal against the decision of DHCJ Woodcock given on 24 November 2017 refusing to grant an extension of time for his application for leave for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board, which dismissed his appeal against the decisions of the Director of Immigration.

2.The facts and issues in the application, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1] We will not repeat them here.

3.The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed out of time on 24 September 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that he wished to challenge the decision of the High Court because he was not satisfied with “the decision”, without providing any particulars or basis.

4.In the affidavit filed on 24 September 2021, the applicant deposed:

“I did not receive a letter from the High Court that is why am late.”

5.In his written submissions lodged on 6 October 2021, the applicant repeated his fears of returning to Africa.

6.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, affidavit and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers. We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

7.The applicant claimed that he did not “receive a letter from the High Court” (presumably the letter enclosing a copy of this court’s judgment) but he did not explain why that might have been the case. He also did not explain how he eventually came to know about the judgment. We are therefore of the view that the applicant has failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

8.In any event, the matters advanced by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484. Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.

9.None of the matters stated in the Notice of Motion are in our view reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 24 September 2021 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person