RE AHMED ISHTIAQ

CACV 66/2021

[2021] HKCA 1165

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 66 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 35 of 2019)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.  On 9 July 2021, this Court handed down our judgment[1] dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Patrick Li given on 9 February 2021 refusing his leave to apply for judicial review.     

2.  On 19 July 2021, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  Despite the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, he has not put in any written submission to support his application.

3.  Having considered the applicant’s 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.  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 does not set out any ground for the application.  It merely states that the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board rejected the applicant’s claim, the Court refused him leave to apply for judicial review, and as he did not get justice, he wants to get justice from the Court of Final Appeal. 

7.  What is stated in the notice of motion does not constitute viable ground for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  No question of great general or public importance has been identified, as required by section 22(1)(b).       

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

9.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we refuse the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  Accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion.