Re Farooq Ali

CAMP 573/2021

[2022] HKCA 1444

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 573 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2304 OF 2018)

__________________

__________________

Before :  Hon Cheung and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Decision :  28 September 2022

__________________

D E C I S I O N

__________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1.On 21 April 2022, this Court handed down a decision ([2022] HKCA 538) dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal the order of Deputy High Court Judge C P Pang given on 26 January 2021 refusing his application for extension of time for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of his non‑refoulement claim.

2.On 10 May 2022, the applicant filed a notice of motion applying for leave to appeal this Court’s decision to the Court of Final Appeal.

3.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing. We have, therefore, proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the document in this case.

4.The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our decision. We will not repeat them.

5.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘HKCFAO’) (Cap. 484) provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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.

6.The applicant stated in his notice of motion the following :

‘ 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’

7.We are of the view that the grounds and arguments put forward by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal. Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

8.Nor do we see any basis for the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we, accordingly, dismiss the notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person1