RE RIZWAN MUHAMMAD

CAMP 199/2021

[2021] HKCA 1681

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 199 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 809 of 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

1.  On 11 October 2021, this Court handed down our judgment[1] refusing to extend the time for the applicant to appeal the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 27 November 2020 refusing to extend the time for him to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 19 October 2021, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant had also put in a written submission on 2 November 2021 to support his application.

3.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and 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.  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.

6.  The notice of motion did not set out any ground in support of the application. It merely stated that, after the dismissal of his application for judicial review, the applicant appealed to the Court of Appeal; and as his appeal was dismissed, he wanted to go to the Court of Final Appeal.

7.  The written submission stated that the applicant’s political enemy wanted to kill him; even though he left his home to stay with his relative, his enemy was so powerful that his parents and relatives told him to leave the country. It further said that the enemy will kill the applicant if he returns, and asked the court to help the applicant.

8.  The matters put forward in the notice of motion and the written submission do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal. Importantly, they all relate to the circumstances of the applicant and his claim, and do not involve any question of great general or public importance that ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination. The requirement for granting leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance is therefore not met.

9.  Moreover, for the reasons we gave in [19] of our judgment, the points made by the applicant are unarguable.

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

11.  As the statutory requirements for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal are not met, we refuse the application and dismiss the notice of motion.