Re Akhtar Javed

CAMP 112/2021

[2022] HKCA 1244

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 112 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 812 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Barma JA and Au JA in Court

Date of Judgment:  29 August 2022

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.On 15 November 2021, this court (Barma JA and Au JA)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”)  given on 9 September 2020 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board, which dismissed his appeal against the decision 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 17 December 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant merely repeated his complaints against the Judge, including that the Judge had allegedly failed to consider all applicable grounds of his claim.

4.In the affirmation filed on 17 December 2021, the applicant deposed:

“I am late to apply Notice of Motion because, as a layman, I don’t know what to apply, so I apologise for that, please kindly accept.”

5.In his written submissions lodged on 31 December 2021, the applicant referred to the well-established principles in ST v Director of Immigration (sic)[2] [2014] 4 HKLRD 277, Secretary for Security v Sakthevel Prabakar [2005] 1 HKLRD 289, R v Home Secretary, ex parte Doody [1994] 1 AC 531 and R v Home Secretary, ex parte Bugdaycay [1987] 1 AC 514.

6.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, affirmation 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 failed to explain how and when he eventually came to know about the judgment of this court.  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.Further, there was no attempt by the applicant to elaborate on whether and, if so, how the trite principles referred to in his written submissions had not been applied in the consideration of his appeal by this court or in the processing of his non-refoulement claim.

10.None of the matters stated in the Notice of Motion are therefore 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).

11.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 17 December 2021 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person