Re Ali Majid

CAMP 481/2021

[2022] HKCA 1610

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 481 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1253 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

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

I.  Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.On 4 May 2022, this Court dismissed the applicant’s renewed application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung given on 8 March 2021 in which he refused to grant extension of time for leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board.

2.The applicant applied, by a notice of motion filed on 16 May 2022, for leave to appeal against our decision to the Court of Final Appeal. 

3.On 8 June 2022, the applicant applied by letter to the Court for leave to withdraw his notice of motion.  By a further letter received by the Court on 14 October 2022, the applicant applied to ‘reopen the Notice of Motion’. 

4.Having considered the applicant’s documents, 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.

5.In his notice of motion, the applicant stated various grounds such as we did not apply principles of procedural unfairness and irrationality.  He complained that the decision maker relied on information which was ‘favor on rejecting’ his claim.  He complained that courts ignore the ‘overwhelming of the evidence’ of violence towards him.  He also asserted that his life was in danger.

II.   Legal principles

6.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘Ordinance’) states that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

III.  Our view

7.The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion do not constitute grounds for granting leave 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 in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance. Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his documents.

8.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.

9.The applicant applied by letter to withdraw his notice of motion.  However, the practice of this Court is to dismiss such application instead of granting leave to withdraw: see Rini Artini [2020] HKCA 709 at [9].

IV.   Disposition

10.For these reasons, the notice of motion is dismissed.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person