RE NEWAR DIPAK

CACV 210/2019

[2021] HKCA 426

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 210 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 75/2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 7 May 2020, this court (Yuen JA, Barma JA and Au JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Campbell-Moffat J (“the judge”) on 24 April 2019 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion dated 1 June 2020, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant did not give any ground of appeal in the Notice of Motion.

4.  The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 6 July 2020.  In the written submission, the applicant contended that:

“It is unfair for the court to not hold a hearing for my appeal just because I wasn’t able to lodge a skeleton submission. Kindly note I am not legally aided, have no means to hire a private solicitor (I am not allowed to work in Hong Kong), have low education background and limited knowledge of English. In these circumstances, I believe it is unreasonable for the court to expect me to file a detailed submission which involve lot of legal principles and perusal of documents, which I am unable to do.

I would be grateful if an oral hearing is arranged so I could say everything I wish to say in favour of appeal”

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.  The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.  

7.  We have given our reasons for dismissing the appeal without a hearing at [12] – [14] of our judgment.  The applicant contended that he should not be required to provide detailed submissions because he did not have legal assistance and his English was not good enough.

8.  As we have held at [13] of our judgment, the purpose of the requirement for skeleton submissions is effective case management.  The applicant was not required to file a detailed submission which involved a “lot of legal principles and perusal of documents”, as the applicant contended in the written submission.  Further, despite the alleged difficulty in understanding English and lack of legal assistance, we note that the applicant was able to observe the directions in the appeal and file the necessary court documents.

9.  In our view, this ground is not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal. 

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

11.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 1 June 2020 is dismissed.