RE HOSSAIN MONIR

CACV 316/2018

[2019] HKCA 116

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 316 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 846 of 2017)

________________________

________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

1. On 21 November 2018, this Court (Chu and Barma JJA) handed down our judgment[1] dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) given on 13 July 2018 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review. 

2. By a Notice of Motion dated 28 November 2018, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant had also lodged a written submission in support of his application. 

3. Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of his notice of motion.

4. Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted if 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.

5. The Notice of Motion stated that the applicant could not go back to his country as it would not be safe, and asked that the applicant be allowed to stay in Hong Kong until his problem was solved.  The written submission further stated that the applicant’s enemies were strong and could use their political power to harm him, and that the police and other authorities all work under them and would ignore their wrongdoing.

6. What was stated in the Notice of Motion and the written submission does not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b).  The matters advanced by the applicant all relate to the circumstances of the applicant’s case.  As we pointed out in [12] of our judgment, there is no proper basis for the applicant’s appeal against the Judge’s decision since he has not pointed to any error in the Judge’s decision and reasons.  

7. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

8. For the above reasons, the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal is not met.  Accordingly, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.