Re Colley Ebrima a.

CACV 133/2022

[2022] HKCA 1594

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 133 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 573 OF 2019)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon B Chu J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 15 August 2022, this court handed down a judgment ([2022] HKCA 1156) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Campbell-Moffat J given on 7 April 2022 refusing to give the applicant leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On 20 September 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion, out of time, to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant also filed an affirmation on the same day but gave no reasons therein to explain his late filing.

3.Despite directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeal, the applicant has not lodged any written submission to support his application.

4.Having considered the 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 documents in the case.

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

6.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 (“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.

7.The Notice of Motion states that: “Director of Immigration and Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissed my non refoulement claim. I was not satisfied so I came to the High Court for leave to appeal for judicial review. The High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed my apply. I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal”.

8.What was stated in the Notice of Motion does not constitute viable grounds for the intended appeal. Importantly, no question of great general and public importance has been identified, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance. Further, for the reasons we gave in [14] to [21] of our judgment, they are not reasonably arguable.

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

10.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, it will be futile to extend the time for making the application, Accordingly, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person.