Bepary Mohammad Jahirul v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

CAMP 43/2022

[2022] HKCA 1187

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 43 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 235 OF 2017)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon G Lam and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions:  8 August 2022

Date of Judgment:  19 August 2022

__________________

J U D G M E N T

__________________

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

1.On 21 July 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for leave to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Anthony To dated 31 January 2022 refusing to grant him an extension of time to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock dated 4 August 2017, whereby Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock refused to grant the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review.

2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 25 July 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:

“Director of Immigration and Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissed my non refoulement claim. I was not satisfied so I came to the High Court for leave to [apply] for judicial review. The High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed my [application]. I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.”

3.In the written submissions of the Applicant dated 8 August 2022, he sets out the history of his claim and says that he did not get true justice, but has not identified any alleged error in the CA Judgment.

4.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 Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final 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.

5.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.

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

The Applicant, acting in person