RE ALI NUSRAT also known as NOKAR HUSSAIN

CACV 263/2018

[2019] HKCA 357

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 263OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 213/2017)

________________________

________________________

_______________

JUDGMENT

_______________

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

1.  By a judgment dated 16 November 2018 ([2018] HKCA 854), this court (Lam VP and Kwan JA) dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the decision of Anthony Chan J dated 15 June 2018 ([2018] HKCFI 1361) refusing leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  By a notice of motion filed on 17 December 2018, the applicant sought leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal by contending that we were wrong in failing to acknowledge his vulnerability, and due to the lack of legal representation, he was not given an opportunity to get medical report for his injuries.  He also asserted that, because of the lapse of time, we were wrong in placing too much weight on his lack of credibility. 

3.  The applicant lodged his written submissions on 31 December 2018. Apart from repeating what was stated in the notice of motion, the applicant added that the process was discriminatory and unfair, and that the lack of language assistance still existed up to date.

4.  The 28-day period for applying for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal expired on 14 December 2018.  Accordingly, there was a 3-day delay in making this application.  In his affirmation dated 17 December 2018, the applicant explained that the delay was due to his unawareness of the time limit. 

5.  Ignorance of time limit is not a reasonable excuse for the delay: see Re Qadir Sher [2018] HKCA 972.  However, the main consideration here is the lack of merit in the intended appeal.

6.  Hitherto, the applicant had not raised any grounds relating to the lack of legal representation and language assistance. In any event, these grounds have no merit.

7.  Nor had he ever indicated that he wished to produce any medical report for his injuries.  Up to now, he has not shown the Court any medical report.

8.  Lapse of time did not impinge on our reasoning at [20] and [21] of our judgment.  The Torture Claims Appeal Board was entitled to make an adverse finding on the applicant’s credibility. 

9.  The applicant failed to put forward any question of great general, or public important that merits the submission to the Court of Final Appeal for determination.  There is no basis to grant leave on the “otherwise” limb.  The statutory criteria set out in section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) are not met. 

10.  For these reasons, we dismiss the notice of motion.