Re Abdul Rahaman

CAMP 370/2021

[2022] HKCA 1626

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 370 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 506 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Chu VP and Cheung JA in Court

Date of Decision:  1 November 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 the judgment ([2022] HKCA 550)  dismissing the applicant’s renewed application to extend time to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge P Li given on 30 March 2021 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.On 27 April 2022, the applicant filed a notice of motion applying for leave to appeal this Court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has lodged his written submissions on 10 May 2022.   

3.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submissions, 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 at [6].  We will not repeat them.

5.Under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘HKCFAO’) (Cap. 484), it 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 does not provide any discernible grounds in his notice of motion save that he repeats his life would be in danger due to threats from his former girlfriend’s family and his request for more time to obtain documents.  As for the applicant’s written submissions, he again asserts that he would be in danger if he returns to India and requires more time to find documents.

7.The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final 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, the intended appeal is devoid of merits and we dismiss the notice of motion dated 27 April 2022 accordingly.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person