RE HOSHAN MOHAMMAD ALAMGIR

CACV 390/2018

[2019] HKCA 373

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 390 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 760 OF 2017)

_______________

_______________

_______________

JUDGMENT

_______________

Hon Fung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  By our judgment dated 10 December 2018 (published as [2018] HKCA 945), we dismissed the applicant’s appeal from the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock dated 31 July 2018 (published as [2018] HKCFI 1728) refusing leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  By a notice of motion dated 17 December 2018, the applicant sought leave of appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against our judgment.  The applicant therein stated that we were wrong to conclude that his claim had no substance.  The applicant also mentioned about the poor performance of his legal representative and reiterated the insufficient time for him to prepare the hearing before the Torture Claims Appeal Board.

3.  In his supporting affirmation dated 17 December 2018, it was deposed that we erred in law in holding that there was no state acquiescence or involvement and that we failed to find out the current situation in Nepal.

4.  In his written submissions lodged on 21 January 2019, the applicant submitted that high standards of fairness were required in the determination of a torture claim, that the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in failing to consider the substantive merits of the applicant’s case, and that the decision maker was under a common law duty to act fairly.

5.  At [15] of our judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal on the basis that he failed to put forth any viable grounds to reverse the judge’s decision.  We also pointed out that there was no basis whatsoever to ground his claim on state acquiescence or involvement. 

6.  Plainly, the applicant did not engage our reasons in dismissing his appeal.  The complaint relating to the performance of his legal representative had never been raised hitherto.  In this application, the applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance. Nor do we see any reason to grant leave on the “or otherwise” limb.  The statutory criterion for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is therefore not met: section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484).

7.  Accordingly, we dismiss the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.