RE AHMED MOHAMMAD SUJON

CACV 247/2018

[2019] HKCA 125

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 247 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1025 OF 2017)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1)   Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal

1.1   On 13 November 2018, this Court gave judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 8 June 2018 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review (‘Decision of the Judge’).

1.2   The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion dated 21 November 2018, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  We will deal with the application on paper.

1.3   It is difficult to understand the content of the Notice of Motion.  In so far as we could understand, the applicant stated that :

(1)   It is not true that his grounds of appeal are without substance,

(2)   He did not complain about the poor performance of his duty lawyer for fear that he would be picked out by the adjudicator,

(3)   He genuinely did not have enough time to address the hearing bundle and

(4)   He would submit the rest of his grounds of appeal as soon as possible.

1.4   The applicant stated in his supporting affirmation that the Court was wrong to hold that there was no state acquiescence.  He stated that the Court failed to investigate up to date country of origin information in a detailed manner.

1.5   In his written submissions on 27 December 2018, the applicant repeated the factual background.  He cited authorities on non-refoulement claims without stating how they applied to his case.  The references made were broad and vague.  We also note that in page 2 of his written submissions at paragraph 6, he stated that his grounds of appeal were ignored by ‘Deputy High Court Judge Madame Woodcock’, when in fact the relevant judge was Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan who on 8 June 2018 dealt with the application for leave to apply for judicial review in the absence of the applicant.

2)  Legal principles

2.    Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

3)  Our view

3.1   The matters stated by the applicant in his Notice of Motion, supporting affirmation and written submission do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO. Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his Notice of Motion, supporting affirmation or written submissions.

3.2   We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

4)  Disposition

4.    For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 21 November 2018 is dismissed.