RE AKHTAR HASSAN

CACV 548/2021

[2022] HKCA 1191

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 548 OF 2021

(ON AN APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2229 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 13 June 2022, this court handed down a judgment ([2022] HKCA 837)  dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 24 November 2021 refusing to grant an extension of time and dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 27 June 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. He has also put in a written submission to support his application.

3.  Having considered the Notice of Motion and the written submission, 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 the documents in the case.

4.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.  Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that 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.

6.  The Notice of Motion did not provide any ground in support of the intended appeal.  It only stated that the applicant was not satisfied with the decisions of the Director of Immigration, the Torture Claim Appeals Board and the Court, and wanted to go to the Court of Final Appeal.  The written submission gave an outline of the basis of the applicant’s claim, stated that the applicant, and also other asylum seekers, did not get justice from the High Court, and asked to be permitted to appeal further. 

7.  Neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submission has identified any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance.  Nor do we see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are therefore not met, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.