Re Bakmeewewa Palitha Bandara

CAMP 431/2022, [2023] HKCA 1204

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MIXCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 431 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 33 OF 2019)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 3 August 2023, this court handed down a judgment ([2023] HKCA 913) dismissing the applicant’s renewed application for extension of time to appeal the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 17 March 2022 dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On 7 August 2023, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. He has also put in a written submission to support his application.

3.The background to this case and the applicant’s claim has been set out in our judgment. We will not repeat them.

4.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.

5.The Notice of Motion stated that the applicant still has problem in his country as his enemies are very power and can do all sorts of harm to his life. The applicant asked to have an oral hearing so that he can explain his situation. He also said he will try his best to obtain supporting documents ahead of the hearing.

6.In his written submission, the applicant, apart from repeating what has been stated in the Notice of Motion, also said that he had been assaulted many times by his enemies and had also been subject to death threats, and he is afraid to go back because he cannot face his enemies. He explained that he had thought of reporting to the police, but his friends told him it was useless because his enemies were connected to the police and reporting to the police would put him in greater danger.

7.The applicant attached a letter to the written submission, explaining that he had not been able to adduce documents during the screening interview. The letter is dated 11 August 2023 and written by Rev. Galnewe Dhammarathana, the Chief Priest and Director of Bauddhaloka Central College and the incumbent High Priest of Bauddhaloka Piriwena. The letter states that the applicant has been a member of the administrative board and a great supporter of the temple and is well known to the Chief Priest. It also states that the applicant had to flee the country due to many threats to his life and property which made it practically impossible for him to carry on with his day-to-day living.

8.We have considered the applicant’s request for an oral hearing. Having regard to the court papers, including what was stated in the Notice of Motion and the 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. Importantly, an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is not an occasion to receive new facts or new documents. We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

9.What the applicant put forward in the Notice of Motion and the written submission do not constitute viable grounds of appeal. They all relate to the applicant’s personal circumstances and his claim. No question of great general or public importance has been directed, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance. Nor do they point to any error in this Court’s decision.

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

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

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person.