RE VISHWAKARMA RAMESH KUMAR

CAMP 23/2021

[2021] HKCA 1210

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 23 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 523 of 2017)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 25 June 2021, this Court handed down our judgment[1] refusing to extend the time for the applicant to appeal the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock given on 7 June 2018 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.    

2.  On 27 July 2021, the applicant filed a notice of motion together with an affirmation to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant had also put in a written submission on 10 August 2021 to support his application.

3.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, affirmation 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 the documents in the case.

4.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.  Section 24(2)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 (“the Ordinance”)  provides that application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be filed within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from.  Under section 24(5)  of the Ordinance, the Court may extend the time for the applicant to file the notice of motion if there is good cause for doing so.

6.  The 28 days for the applicant to file a notice of motion ended on Friday 23 July 2021.  The applicant’s notice of motion was filed out of time on the following Tuesday, which is a slight delay.  The applicant tendered an apology for the delay in his affirmation but did not explain the cause for it. 

7.  Under section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance, 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.

8.  The applicant did not put forward any ground of appeal in the notice of motion.  He merely stated he wanted to go the Court of Final Appeal because he was not satisfied with the decisions of the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board as well as those of the Court. In the written submission, the applicant stated that his enemy wanted to kill him, hence he came to Hong Kong to save his life; and there is no way that he can return to his country.   

9.  The matters put forward by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal. Importantly, they have not identified any question of great general or public importance that ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination.  The requirement for granting leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance is therefore not met.

10.  Since the intended application has no merits, it would be futile to extend the time for the applicant to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  Accordingly, we will not extend the time for the applicant to apply for leave to appeal.  The notice of motion is dismissed.