RE RAJINDER SINGH

CAMP 135/2021

[2022] HKCA 155

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 135 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 570 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  On 14 December 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s (Cheung and Au JJA) judgment of 24 November 2021 (“the Judgment”) ([2021] HKCA 1745). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 17 August 2020 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review ([2020] HKCFI 2006).

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

3.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this Court or the Court of Final Appeal 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.  In his Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“THE HIGH COURT DISMISSED MY LEAVE TO APPEAL AND THE COURT OF APPEAL TOO DISMISSED MY LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THEM. I WANT TO GO TO THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL” (sic)

5.  The applicant lodged his written submissions on 28 December 2021.  In his submissions, he alleged that he had life threat in his home country, that his enemies were powerful and influential and that he could not find a safe place in India to hide.  He also claimed that his enemies would kill him anywhere in India and that the police received bribe and supported his enemies.  As such, he fled his home country and came to Hong Kong.  As his non-refoulement claim and leave to apply for judicial review were dismissed, he wanted to go to the Court of Final Appeal.

6.  In our view, the applicant’s application is wholly devoid of merits.  None of the matters raised in his Notice of Motion or written submissions has identified any specific error in the Judgment.  General assertions of his fear to return to his home country simply do not constitute viable grounds of appeal.  The matters raised in his Notice of Motion and written submissions are all general, bare, vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence.  Clearly, they do not constitute proper grounds of appeal.

7.  Accordingly, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

8.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 14 December 2021 is dismissed.