RE ARIF MOLLA

CACV 264/2018

[2019] HKCA 437

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 264 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 949 OF 2017)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1)   Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal

1.1  On 18 January 2019, this Court handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal (‘judgment’) against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 15 June 2018 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

1.2  The facts and issues in the appeal before the Court of Appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

1.3  The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion dated 30 January 2019, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  We will deal with this application on paper.

1.4  The applicant stated in his notice of motion that all judgments or orders were made against him.  He stated that if he is to return to Bangladesh he will be killed.  He further stated that the present government will be in power for the next five years.

1.5  The applicant lodged his written submissions on 28 February 2019.  Amongst other things, and in summary, he repeated factual and procedural background information.  He blamed his friend for not filing written submissions for him in his previous application.  He reiterated that he will be killed if refouled.  He complained about findings of fact made by the Director and/or the Board.  He further complained about his trial bundle containing documents in English, and how the Judge was incorrect in his analysis on his credibility.

1.6  Accompanying the applicant’s written submissions on 28 February 2019, he lodged 20 pages of enclosures.  Such enclosures are what appears to be foreign notarized documents which seem to suggest that he cannot return to Bangladesh because the authorities are looking for him for his involvement in an alleged murder case.  By the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 4 March 2019, these enclosure evidence will not be considered by the Court of Appeal.  We agree with these directions.  

2)  Legal principles

2.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

3)  Our view

3.1  The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO. Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion or written submissions.

3.2  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

4)  Disposition

4.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 30 January 2019 is dismissed.