RE HUSSAIN IMTIAZ

CACV 400/2019

[2020] HKCA 620

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 400 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 689 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1)  Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal

1.1  On 17 January 2020, this Court handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam given on 20 August 2019 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review (‘Decision of the Judge’).

1.2  The facts and issues in the appeal before the Court of Appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

1.3  The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion dated 23 January 2020, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

1.4  In the notice of motion the applicant said that he received a letter from the Court stating that his written submissions were not received when he in fact had already submitted it.

1.5  The applicant provided written submissions.  The contents were handwritten and generally undecipherable.  With our best reading effort, the applicant submitted that he was a political enemy in his state, that there was state acquiescence, that there was a risk of him being killed if he returned, that there was a lack of legal assistance before the Board, and that the decisions of the Director and the Board were wrong.

2)  Legal principles

2.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

3)  Our view

3.1  The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The notice of motion does not address the fact that his written submissions were filed out of time, and there was basis for the Court to vacate the hearing accordingly.  The matters contained in his written submissions lack meaningful particulars and justifications.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion and written submissions.

3.2  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

4)  Disposition

4.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 23 January 2020 is dismissed.