Re Saddam Husain

CACV 306/2021

[2022] HKCA 1260

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 306 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2782 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Barma JA and Lisa Wong J 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 Lisa Wong J)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To given on 4 June 2021 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing his appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, 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.  The applicant in the Notice of Motion simply stated that he wished to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, without setting out any grounds in support.

4.In his supporting affirmation filed on 17 December 2021, the applicant simply acknowledged that he failed to file the Notice of Motion in time.

5.In breach of Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant failed to lodge any written submissions with the court.

6.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and affirmation, 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, we are of the view that the matters stated 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.Neither the Notice of Motion nor the affirmation contain any particulars as to the alleged error in our judgment and they raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

10.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