Re Zulfiqar Ali
Read the full judgment text of CAMP 153/2022 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 21 March 2023.
1. On 17 October 2022, this Court (Kwan VP and Cheung JA) gave the decision dismissing the applicant’s extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung given on 28 October 2021 in which he refused to grant leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board.
Cited by 1 case
|
CAMP 153/2022 [2023] HKCA 388 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 153 OF 2022 (ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 786 OF 2019) ________________________
________________________
________________________ 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 17 October 2022, this Court (Kwan VP and Cheung JA) gave the decision dismissing the applicant’s extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung given on 28 October 2021 in 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, a supporting affirmation both filed on 5 December 2022 and a written submission lodged on 19 December 2022, for leave to appeal against our decision to the Court of Final Appeal out of time. 3.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. 4.The applicant’s notice of motion is glaringly late. According to section 24 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘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 around three weeks late. The applicant stated in his affirmation that his notice of motion was ‘out of scheduled time’. No further details were provided. This is a bare allegation unsupported by any explanation. We will not accept the applicant’s reason for the delay. 5.The applicant’s notice of motion stated the following :
6.In the applicant’s written submissions, he stated that he has ‘life threat’ in his country. He stated that the Director, the Board, the High Court and the Court of Appeal rejected his claim. He stated that there were errors that the Court could not find. II. Legal principles 7.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. III. Our view 8.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. 9.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b). IV. Disposition 10.For these reasons, the notice of motion is dismissed.
Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CAMP 153/2022