Re Beant Singh

CAMP 140/2022, [2024] HKCA 584

On appeal from [2021] HKCFI 2275

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 140 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 2027 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 12 December 2022, this court (Chu VP and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ Bruno Chan dated 11 August 2021 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing his appeal against the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.

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 6 February 2023, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant merely stated that the judgment of this court was “not good for [him]” and that he wished to “go to [the Court of Final Appeal]”.

4.In his written submissions, lodged out of time on 21 February 2023, the applicant merely expressed in general terms that he was dissatisfied with the decisions made against him in the processing of his claim.

5.On 5 June 2023, the applicant sent a letter to this court, seeking to “withdraw [his] appeal application under Notice of Motion CAMP 140/2022” and asked this court to “cancel all [his] cases in Hong Kong” because he “want[s] to go back to [his] home country India as soon as possible” (“the Request”).

6.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.

7.First, because the applicant had lodged his written submissions late, he is deemed to have abandoned his right to rely on the same.  In any event, the content of his written submissions do not advance nor assist his position in this application.

8.Second, the Notice of Motion was filed out of time, and no explanation was provided by the applicant for the delay.  The delay of around 3 weeks was not insignificant, and the Notice is liable to be dismissed on this basis alone.

9.Third, in light of the Request, it follows that there is no reason why the present application should not be dismissed.  

10.The aforesaid notwithstanding, we have nonetheless proceeded to consider the merits of the application.

11.The matters stated by the applicant do not 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.

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

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

14.For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 6 February 2023 is dismissed.

The applicant acting in person