BALA BISWAJIT v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD /NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 37/2019

[2019] HKCA 832

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 37 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 736 OF 2018)

_______________

_______________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  By a judgment dated 9 May 2019 ([2019] HKCA 511), the Court of Appeal (Yeung Ag CJHC, Poon and Pang JJA) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“the Judge”) dated 15 January 2019 refusing to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review.  By a Notice of Motion dated 23 May 2019, the applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

2.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant set out the following grounds :

“ I am not satisfied with the decision given by the Appeal Board because it’s not fair. It’s lack of actual facts and far away from the real facts. Please help me to stay here until I have problem.”

3.  In compliance with the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 24 May 2019, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 3 June 2019.  In his written submissions, apart from repeating what was stated in the Notice of Motion, he added that the Indian police were corrupt and would rarely bring justice to people.  He would face risk of torture or even killed by his political enemies which is the current ruling party of India if he were refouled to his country.

4.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals directed on 24 May 2019 that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  As it is appropriate to do so, this application shall be determined on paper accordingly.

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.  Plainly, what was put forward by the applicant in the Notice of Motion and his written submissions do not constitute valid grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  For the reasons that we gave in our judgment, we do not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s order.  None of the questions raised by the applicant in the Notice of Motion or in his written submissions gives rise to any question of great general or public importance or is one that ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.  Nor do we see any basis to grant leave under the “otherwise” limb.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) are not met.

6.  Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his Notice of Motion.