|
CACV 140/2018
[2018] HKCA 623
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 140 OF 2018
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 362 of 2017)
____________________________
____________________________
| Before: Hon Cheung, Chu and Barma JJA in Court |
| Date of Judgment: 28 September 2018 |
________________
J U D G M E N T
________________
Hon Chu JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 10 August 2018, this Court (Chu and Barma JJA) handed down our judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock given on 23 April 2018 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.
2. By a Notice of Motion dated 15 August 2018, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.
On 29 August 2018, the applicant also put in a written submission to support his application.
3. 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.
4. The only ground in the Notice of Motion is that the applicant could not go back to his home country due to danger. The applicant asked to be allowed to stay in Hong Kong until his problem is solved.
5. The written submission further stated that the applicant’s enemies were politically influential and could locate him anywhere in his country, and he would be tortured or killed by them. The applicant claimed that his enemies always went to his place to look for him and the police could not take any action against them.
6. The matters set out in the Notice of Motion and the written submission are case-specific and relate only to the personal circumstances of the applicant. They do not involve any question of great, general or public importance. Further, these matters had been considered by the Director and the Board. We had in our judgment pointed out that there was no legal basis for the court to disturb their conclusions on the merits of the applicant’s claim.
7. There is also no other reason for submitting the proposed appeal to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.
8. In the circumstances, the condition for giving leave to appeal is not met. Accordingly, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.
| (Peter Cheung) |
(Carlye Chu) |
(Aarif Barma) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.
|