|
CACV 228/2018
[2019] HKCA 6
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 228 OF 2018
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 849 of 2017)
________________________
| Re. |
SANDHU RANJIT SINGH |
Applicant |
________________________
Before: Hon Cheung, Chu and Barma JJA in Court
Date of Judgment: 7 January 2019
________________
J U D G M E N T
________________
Hon Chu JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 12 November 2018, this Court (Chu and Barma JJA) handed down our judgment[1] (“the Judgment”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 12 June 2018.
2. By a Notice of Motion dated 12 November 2018, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.
3. Pursuant to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant has lodged a written submission dated 26 November 2018 to support his application.
4. Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission, 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 his notice of motion.
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 did not set out any proposed question for determination by the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant only stated that he was not satisfied with the Judgment because he is not safe in his country. He asked to be allowed to stay in Hong Kong.
7. In his written submission, the applicant reiterated that it would not be safe for him to return to his country. He said that his enemies are strong and can locate him no matter where he goes in the country, and also they can use their political power to harm him.
8. What was put forward by the applicant in the notice of motion and written submission do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. Firstly, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b). The matters raised by the applicant only relate to his personal circumstances.
9. Secondly, the Board has found that there were no substantial grounds for believing that the applicant had been subject to torture or ill-treatment, or that, if he were refouled to India, he would be in danger of being subjected to torture, persecution or ill-treatment or violation of his absolute and non-derogable rights. In the circumstances, what the applicant stated in the notice of motion and written submission simply cannot stand.
10. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
11. For the above reasons, the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal is not met. Accordingly, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.
| (Peter Cheung) |
(Carlye Chu) |
(Aarif Barma) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.
|