Lovepreet Singh v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CAMP 34/2022, [2023] HKCA 687

On An Intended Appeal From [2020] HKCFI 2388 &

[2022] HKCFI 99

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 34 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 924 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

______________

J U D G M E N T

______________

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

1.On 26 July 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge C P Pang dated 28 September 2020 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 25 April 2018, whereby the Board dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration dated 25 November 2016.

2.By Notice of Motion dated 19 April 2023, the Applicant applies for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant stated, inter alia, that (i) he disagreed with the decisions of the authorities and the court, (ii) the decision maker relied on “some web news which officially not recognized”, and (iii) he did not think his case was determined fairly. No proper ground of appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion.

3.The Applicant has failed to lodge with the court written submissions in support of his application contrary to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 19 April 2023.

4.Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal (as the case may be), 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.

5.The present application is seriously out of time. In his affirmation filed on 19 April 2023, the Applicant said that he was not aware of the deadline to file the Notice of Motion. However, ignorance of the law or proper legal procedure is not a good excuse for the Applicant’s delay in making an application for leave to appeal.

6.In any event, no question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success. There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

7.Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, acting in person