Rai Nandeshwar v. Torture Claims Appeal Board and Another

CACV 88/2023, [2024] HKCA 1052

On appeal from [2023] HKCFI 472

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 88 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 186 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal handed down on 5 July 2023 ([2023] HKCA 803). The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 10 March 2023 refusing to grant leave for the applicant to bring judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) concerning his non-refoulement claim.

2.Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed that the notice of motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing. The applicant lodged his written submissions on 3 November 2023. Having considered his written submissions and the papers, we think it is appropriate to determine this application on paper.

Grounds of appeal

3.In his notice of motion filed on 12 October 2023, the applicant stated that he did not get justice so he wants to go to the Court of Final Appeal to get justice.

4.In his written submissions, he complained that the judgment does not make logical sense at all and contended that he wants to seek a reconsideration of his case based on unfairness and unreasonableness because of the lack of language assistance and legal representation.

Analysis and disposition

5.Under section 24(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) (“the Ordinance”), an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be filed within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from. Good grounds have to be shown for the court to grant an extension of time pursuant to section 24(5) of the Ordinance (Re Rajaram Razeena [2019] HKCA 959 at §1.4).

6.Section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, 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.

7.The applicant was late for more than 2 months when he filed the notice of motion. He explained in his written submissions that he was detained by the Immigration Department so he was not aware of the decision of his appeal and the reasons for the refusal. He claimed that he was released on 1 October 2023.

8.Even if we are minded to accept his explanation for the delay, this application is unmeritorious for the reasons below.

9.The applicant’s grounds concerning the lack of language assistance and legal representation were duly considered by the Court of Appeal. Detailed reasons were given for rejecting those grounds in the judgment dated 5 July 2023 at §§20 to 21. He failed to point out any mistakes in the judgment of the Court of Appeal.

10.The applicant’s contention that the judgment does not make logical sense is just a bare assertion without any particulars. He has failed to raise any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b). There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

11.For the above reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss the notice of motion filed on 12 October 2023.

The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person