Re Khan Bakhtiar

CACV 66/2022

[2022] HKCA 765

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 66 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 278 OF 2019)

__________________________

Before:  Hon Chu and M Poon JJA in Court

Date of Judgment:  30 May 2022

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.On 14 April 2022, this Court handed down our judgment[1] dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 26 January 2022 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On 5 May 2022, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. He has also lodged a written submission to support his application.

3.Having considered the notice of motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing. We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, 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.

5.The notice of motion set out the following grounds in support of the application:

“I have problem in own country. Please give me some time to stay here so that I can solve my problem. At this moment I cannot go back to my home country because danger still there for me. Please allow me to process further my case.”

6.The applicant’s written submission lodged on 10 May 2022 is identical to the written submission he put in on 14 February 2022 in support of his appeal. The contents had been summarised in our judgment at [12].

7.We are of the view that there is no proper basis to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. Importantly, it has not been shown that the intended appeal involves a question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b). Further, for the reasons we gave at [17] to [20] of our judgment, the matters put forward in the notice of motion and the written submission have no merits. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we dismiss the notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.