Re Gill Fakir Singh

CAMP 243/2022

[2023] HKCA 807

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 243 OF 2022

(ON AN APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2040 OF 2018)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Chu VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 8 February 2023, this court handed down a judgment ([2023] HKCA 141) dismissing the applicant’s renewed application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 6 July 2021 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On 9 February 2023, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has also put in a written submission to support the application.

3.Having considered the Notice of Motion and written submission, 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 background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment. We will not repeat them.

5.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, 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.

6.The Notice of Motion did not set out any ground in support of the application. It only stated that the applicant wants to go to the Court of Final Appeal.

7.In the written submission, the applicant stated that his life is under threat in his motherland, and he had to leave even though he loves the place and cannot forget his life there. He also said that the decisions of the Director of Immigration, the Torture Claims Appeal Board and the Court did not relate to his arguments and thus he wants to go to the Court of Final Appeal.

8.The matters raised by the applicant do not amount to viable grounds for the intended appeal. Importantly, the applicant fails to identify any question of great general and public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.

9.We also do not see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person.