MAGAR RUDRA BAHADUR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 204/2021

[2021] HKCA 1686

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 204 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2223 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

____________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

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

1.  On 24 September 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 16 April 2021 refusing to grant to the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 6 September 2018.

2.  The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 6 October 2021 seeking an order that the CA Judgment be set aside by the Court of Final Appeal/Appeal Committee/a permanent Judge of the Court of Final Appeal.  The Applicant’s Notice of Motion shall be treated by this Court as an application for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, the Applicant repeats his complaints about lack of language and legal assistance. These complaints have already been considered and rejected in the CA Judgment. Having considered the contents of the Applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, we consider it appropriate to deal with the Notice of Motion on paper notwithstanding the Applicant’s request for “a reconsideration of the case with an oral hearing arranged”.

3.  Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal 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.

4.  No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion.  We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal.  There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

5.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.