莊裕安 v. 特首李家超 and Another

CACV 151/2023, [2023] HKCA 1119

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 151 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1264 OF 2023)

____________________

____________________

________________

D E C I S I O N

________________

Hon Anthony Chan J (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1.This is the Summons of the Applicant filed on 18 August 2023 (“Summons”) seeking an order that: (a) his appeal be heard by a bench of non-Chinese Judges; (b) the appointment of amicus curiae in his appeal; and (c) the Court to provide the translation (should it be required) for the Chinese recordings contained in two DVD provided by the Applicant.

2.In this appeal, the Applicant seeks to set aside the refusal by the lower Court to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review, and an order from this Court granting him such leave.

3.This application is supported by an affirmation of the Applicant filed on 18 August 2023 (“Affirmation”).

4.Having considered the materials before the Court, including the written submissions of the Applicant lodged on 12 September 2023 (“Submissions”), we consider that it is appropriate to determine this application on paper.

5.It should be mentioned that two further affirmations had been filed by the Applicant on respectively 4 and 11 September 2023. It appears that the purpose of the additional affirmations was to provide copies of various documents (respectively 21 pages and 40 pages) which were said to support the Applicant’s appeal and this application. In respect of the appeal, these affirmations were filed in breach of para 8 of the Directions of the Court dated 16 June 2023 with attendant consequence. As regards this application, the relevance of the 61 pages of additional materials is not clear, nor has it been explained in the Submissions.

6.In para 1 of the Submissions, the Applicant acknowledged that in light of the fact that this appeal will be heard by bilingual Judges, the translation of the Chinese recordings is no longer a live issue.

7.In respect of the request for this appeal to be heard by non-Chinese Judges, the only ground put forward (found in the Affirmation) is that many of the bilingual Judges of the Court of Appeal had dealt with a number of the Applicant’s past cases. It was said that the facts of those cases were directly related to this appeal, therefore giving rise to conflict of interest. Aside from such general assertions, this ground has not been properly particularized.

8.It is incorrect to assume that previous dealings with the Applicant’s cases will necessarily give rise to conflict of interest or a reason for a Judge to recuse himself from dealing with any other case of the Applicant. Much will depend on the relevant circumstances, issues and the Court’s Decisions in the previous cases and the circumstances and issues of the new case. We are unable to see any sufficient basis to accede to this request.

9.As regards the appointment of amicus, it is a matter for this Court. Normally, such appointment will only be made on difficult and important cases, especially where the court sees the need for assistance in addition to what the litigant(s) may provide to it. We do not believe that the issues in this appeal are complicated. We decline the appointment of amicus.

10.Accordingly, the Summons is dismissed with no order as to costs.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person.