RE CAMARA ABOUBACAR

CAMP 246/2022

[2023] HKCA 382

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 246 OF 2022

(ON AN APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 574 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 8 February 2023, this court handed down a judgment ([2023] HKCA 134)  dismissing the applicant’s renewed application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Campbell-Moffat J given on 15 March 2022 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 10 February 2023, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  Despite directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeal, he has not put in any written submission to support the application.

3.  Having considered the 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 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.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated (in French)  that he could not go back to Guinea and he had problem[1].

7.  What was put forward in the Notice of Motion does not amount to viable ground for the intended appeal.  Importantly, the applicant fails to identify any question of great general and public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance.   

8.  We also do not see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b). 

9.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.