Re Dhillon Manjit Singh

CACV 193/2022

[2023] HKCA 327

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 193 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 212 OF 2019)

_________________________

________________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.This court handed down judgment on 29 August 2022 ([2022] HKCA 1290) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against an order of DHCJ K.W. Lung given on 3 May 2022 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review in respect of his non‑refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the appeal before this court, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.On 30 September 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. However, it was out of time, as section 24(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (“HKCFAO”) (Cap. 484) stipulates that the deadline for filing an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal is 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from. Excluding the Summer Vacation (in this case, the last 2 days of August 2022) as provided under section 31(1) of the High Court Ordinance (Cap. 4), the deadline for filing the Notice of Motion expired on 28 September 2022.

4.However, under sections 24(5) and 24(6) of the HKCFAO, the Court of Appeal has a discretion to extend the appeal period even though the application for extension is not made until after the expiration of that period. In the exercise of our discretion whether or not to extend the appeal period, we should consider the length of the delay, the applicant’s reasons for the delay, the merits of the intended appeal, and whether any prejudice would be suffered by the other party.

5.In the present case, the applicant was late by 2 days and he alleged in his supporting affirmation that he did not receive the court order in time. As in any event the delay is insignificant, we would focus on the merits of the application.

6.The applicant has not shown any merits in this intended application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. He advanced the following in the Notice of Motion:

“With due respect and humble submissions I beg to you that I am not agree with the decision of the Court of Appeal. The decision makers did not review my problem in my home country. The considering power of the decision maker was low. If the Judges had scrutinized my application and the appeal they would have accepted my case. All the decision including the Notice of Appeal are like a simply hearsay. I have severe problem in my home country. If I return back there I will be killed by my enemy. My enemy is still looking for me, but the decision makers including Torture Claims Appeal Board and the Director of Immigration did not consider my claim properly, this decision make me liable to remove from Hong Kong to risk state.”

7.The applicant further mentioned in his supporting affirmation that he would be killed by his enemies upon his return to his home country and the present application is important to his life.

8.Pursuant to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals made on 30 September 2022 the applicant should lodge his written submissions on or before 14 October 2022. He failed to do so. The Registrar further directed that upon the expiry of the time for taking the aforesaid steps and unless otherwise directed, the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing. As we consider it appropriate, this Notice of Motion is determined on paper without an oral hearing.

9.Section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO 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.

10.Having regard to this court’s judgment, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit at all. No question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

11.Nor do we see any basis for granting leave under the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

12.By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion filed on 30 September 2022 is dismissed.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person