Re Ashraf Muhammad

CAMP 557/2021

[2023] HKCA 289

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 557 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1755 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

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

1)  Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.On 6 May 2022, this Court (Cheung and Chow JJA)  gave the decision dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge CP Pang given on 12 January 2021 by which he refused to grant leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board.

2.The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion and supporting affirmation filed on 15 July 2022, for leave to appeal against our decision to the Court of Final Appeal out of time.  Despite the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant has not put in a written submission to support his application.

3.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and affirmation, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining this type of application 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.

2)  Legal principles

4.Under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’)  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.

3)  Our view

5.The applicant’s notice of motion is glaringly late.  According to section 24 of the HKCFAO, the applicant’s notice of motion ought to have been filed with the Court within 28 days of our extension decision.  The applicant is more than one month late.  The applicant stated in his affirmation that he was ‘sorry as I failed to apply in time’.  No further details were provided.  This is a bare allegation unsupported by any explanation.  We will not accept the applicant’s reasons for the delay.

6.The applicant’s notice of motion merely stated that because his claim was rejected in both the High Court and the Court of Appeal, he now wishes to go to the Court of Final Appeal.

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 HKCFAO. 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).

4)  Disposition

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

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person