Re v. Trung Tu

CAMP 134/2023, [2023] HKCA 1165

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 134 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1522 OF 2018)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 20 June 2023, this court handed down a judgment ([2023] HKCA 763) dismissing the applicant’s renewed application for extension of time to appeal the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 18 May 2021 dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On 14 July 2023, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion together with an affirmation to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. Despite directions given by the court, he has not put in any written submission to support his application.

3.Having considered the Notice of Motion and the affirmation, 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 stated the following in support of the application:

(1) The Court of Appeal judgment was unsatisfactory.

(2) The applicant’s life will be seriously threatened and in danger because the creditors and gangsters in Vietnam are cruel and violent, have no regard for the law and will readily kill to satisfy their anger and ferocity. The applicant could be tortured, beaten or killed because he has yet to agree on a repayment plan.

(3) Internal relocation is not feasible because the gangsters have a nationwide network. Further, the applicant will face many difficulties and obstacles in that his health is not good and he is not an active person, which will disadvantage him in the labour market, and there is also no guarantee that he will be able to adapt to the new environment and able to make a living.

(4) The Immigration Department did not consider the applicant’s human rights under the Basic law, the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance and the international covenants.

7.The applicant also stated in his affirmation that he has a good ground of appeal, but did not elaborate on what the ground is.

8.We are of the view that the matters set out in the notice of motion and affirmation do not afford any basis for granting leave to appeal. Importantly, they all concern the applicant’s claim and personal circumstances, and do not show that the intended appeal involves any question of great general or public importance. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

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

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person.