RE RAI SUBAS

CACV 298/2018

[2019] HKCA 210

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 298OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 880/2017)

___________________

___________________

___________________

JUDGMENT

___________________

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

1.  On 13 November 2018, the Court (Lam VP and Chu JA) handed down a judgment ([2018] HKCA 822) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) given on 22 June 2018 ([2018] HKCFI 1377) refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  By a notice of motion dated 26 November 2018, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

3.  In his notice of motion and his written submissions lodged on 10 December 2018, the applicant put forth the following grounds of appeal:

(a)   We were wrong to hold that his complaint of lack of language assistance did not constitute a ground of appeal; and

(b)   We failed to deal with his complaint regarding the absence of oral hearing for his appeal relating to his BOR 2 risk.

4.  The only complaint on lack of language assistance raised by the applicant before the judge was in respect of the translation of the NCF which had been adequately addressed by the judge (as affirmed by us).  As held at [14(b) (c) and (e)], in the appeal we would not entertain arguments not advanced before the judge.

5.  We have addressed the argument on lack of oral hearing on the BOR 2 risk assessment at [15] to [17] of our judgment.

6.  The grounds of the applicant are not reasonably arguable.

7.  In any event, the grounds advanced by the applicant are case-specific, not involving any question of great general or public importance, as required under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484).  Nor do we see any basis to grant leave on the “otherwise” limb.  The statutory thresholds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal are not met.

8.  Accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion.