RE AHMED JAMIL

CAMP 567/2021

[2022] HKCA 816

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 567 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1500 OF 2018)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 1 April 2022, this court handed down judgment ([2022] HKCA 466) dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 18 May 2021 refusing to extend time for him to apply for judicial review in respect of his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  On 29 April 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion together with an affirmation to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has also lodged a written submission on 13 May 2022.

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 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that 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 only stated that the applicant wished to appeal our judgment, but did not set out any ground in support of the application.

7.  The written submission stated that the applicant’s life is under threat in his home country, and there is no way he can go back even though he wants to do so. It is also said that while the Court did not find any error, there are in fact many errors, so he wants to go to the Court of Final Appeal to get justice.

8.  We are of the view that the matters stated in the written submission do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal. Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.

9.  Nor do we see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, it would be futile to extend the time to apply for leave to appeal. Accordingly, we refuse to extend the time for making the application and dismiss the Notice of Motion.