Singh Amarveer and Another v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CACV 245/2021

[2022] HKCA 1065

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 245 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2601 OF 2018)

________________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

Before:  Hon Cheung and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions:  31 May 2022

Date of Judgment:  2 August 2022

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

1.On 4 May 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 3 May 2021 refusing to grant leave to the Applicants to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 23 August 2018.

2.The Applicants now apply by Notice of Motion dated 17 May 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicants state that they would like to reject and review the decision made by the court and further that the court has disregarded their dangerous situation. In their written submissions dated 31 May 2022, they make the same complaint, and allege that the human rights situation in the Philippines is one of the worst in the world. The Applicant have not, in either the Notice of Motion or written submissions, pointed to any alleged specific error in the CA Judgment.

3.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 the Court of Final Appeal or the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Final Appeal or the Court of Appeal, as the case may be, 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.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.

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

6.For the avoidance of doubt, the absence of legal representation for the Applicants in this appeal is treated as an irregularity without rendering their appeal a nullity.

The Applicants, acting through their next friend