Re Singh Santokh and Another

CACV 448/2021, [2023] HKCA 484

On Appeal From [2021] HKCFI 2723

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 448 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2684 OF 2018)

__________________________

___________________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.This court handed down judgment on 10 October 2022 ([2022] HKCA 1479) dismissing the 1^st and 2^nd applicants’ appeal against an order of DHCJ Bruno Chan given on 10 September 2021 refusing to grant leave to the 1^st and 2^nd applicants to apply for judicial review in respect of their 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 21 October 2022, the 1^st and 2^nd applicants filed a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

4.The Notice of Motion stated the following:

“Respected Sir/Madam, Its my humble request to you that I have problem in own country please give me some time to stay here so that I can solve my problem. At this moment I cannot go back to my home country because danger still there for me. Please allow me to process further my case. I will be great full your kindness.”

5.In compliance with the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals made on 21 October 2022, the 1^st and 2^nd applicants lodged their written submissions on 27 October 2022. This Notice of Motion is determined on paper without an oral hearing, which we consider appropriate.

6.In their written submissions, they said:

(1)  Many aspects of their case were ignored and all the decisions were not transparent. The actual situation of their country is different from what the decision-makers might think.

(2)  It is dangerous for them to return to their home country as their enemies are waiting for them.

(3)  The police and law authorities are corrupt and assistance would only be rendered to those who are powerful and rich.

(4)  They urged the court to help them to stay in Hong Kong until their problem is solved.

7.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (“HKCFAO”) (Cap. 484) 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.

8.Having regard to this court’s judgment, the 1^st and 2^nd applicants’ 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.

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

10.By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion filed on 21 October 2022 is dismissed.

The applicants, unrepresented, acting in person