Re Sadiq Imran

CAMP 424/2021

[2022] HKCA 1100

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 424 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1494 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Cheung and Au JJA in Court

Date of Judgment:  26 July 2022

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.On 1 March 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s (Cheung and Au JJA)  judgment of 17 February 2022 (“the Judgment”)  ([2022] HKCA 228). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s reapplication for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Deputy Judge”)  dated 7 May 2021, refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Decision”)  ([2021] HKCFI 1275).

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

3.Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”)  provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this Court or the Court of Final Appeal 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.

4.In his Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“THE HIGH COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEAL DISMISSED MY LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW BUT I WISH THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL WILL CONSIDER MY LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW.” (sic)

5.Contrary to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant did not lodge any written submissions.

6.As the applicant failed to identify any error in the Judgment or provide any ground of appeal in his Notice of Motion, his intended appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is a non-starter and must fail.

7.Accordingly, the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.

8.For these reasons, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion filed on 1 March 2022 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person