Re Alam Jahangir

CAMP 585/2021

[2022] HKCA 1447

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 585 OF 2021

(ON AN APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1754 OF 2018)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 11 March 2022, this court handed down a judgment ([2022] HKCA 364) dismissing the applicant’s renewed application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Lung given on 21 May 2020, which refused to extend the time for him to apply for judicial review and dismissed his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On 31 August 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion together with an affirmation to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal out of time.  He has also put in a written submission to support the application.

3.Having considered the Notice of Motion, the affirmation and written submission, 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 documents in the case.

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

5.Section 24(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be filed within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from.  Section 24(5) of the Ordinance further provides that the Court of Appeal may extend the time for the filing of the notice of motion.  In considering whether to extend the time, we will have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reasons for the delay; (iii) the merits of the intended application; and (iv) the prejudice to the other parties if time was extended.  

6.The applicant’s Notice of Motion is late by more than four months, which is serious delay.  The applicant has not given any explanation for the delay.    

7.As to the merits of the intended application, section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance 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.

8.The Notice of Motion states that the applicant is not satisfied with the decisions of the High Court and wants to go to the Court of Final Appeal.  The supporting affirmation merely asks the Court to accept the application.

9.In the written submission, the applicant stated that the ruling party in the applicant’s country is very bad and the party leader is autocratic.  He also stated that the Torture Claim Appeals Board made many mistakes, but the High Court refused his leave application, so he wants to go to the Court of Final Appeal to get justice. 

10.What was stated in the Notice of Motion and the written submission do not constitute viable grounds for the application. Importantly, no question of great general and public importance has been identified, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance, had been identified.  Further, for the reasons we gave in [19] of our judgment, they are not reasonably arguable.

11.We also do not see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b). 

12.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are therefore not met, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person.