Re Khan Naveed Ahmed

CAMP 419/2021, [2023] HKCA 1269

on appeal from [2022] HKCA 254

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 419 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 769 OF 2018)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 25 February 2022, this court (Yuen JA and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ Josiah Lam dated 7 March 2019 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decisions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing his appeal against the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim, as well as the Director’s decisions themselves.

2.The facts and issues in the applicant’s application, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1] We will not repeat them here.

3.The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed out of time on 2 December 2022, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated that he wished to “go to [the Court of Final Appeal]” because the “judgments [of the High Court and the Court of Appeal] are not good for [him]”.

4.In his written submissions lodged on 16 December 2022, the applicant repeated the dangers he may face if he returned to Pakistan, and that the court’s decisions were “wrong” and that he “did not get justice from the High Court”.

5.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers. We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.The applicant failed to explain how and when he eventually came to know about the judgment of this court. We are therefore of the view that the applicant has failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay of 9 months, which is very substantial. While the Notice of Motion is liable to be dismissed on this basis alone, we have nonetheless proceeded to consider the merits of the application.

7.The matters stated by the applicant do not in any event constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484. Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.

8.Neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submissions identify any supposed error in our judgment and they raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

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

10.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 2 December 2022 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person