RE SHAKEEL MUHAMMAD

CAMP 121/2019

[2020] HKCA 154

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 121 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 473 OF 2017)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

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

1)  Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.1  On 13 November 2019, this Court (Cheung JA and Barma JA) gave the decision dismissing the applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock given on 9 February 2018 in which she refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

1.2  The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion and supporting affirmation filed on 18 November 2019, for leave to appeal against our decision to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has also lodged his written submissions on 19 December 2019.

1.3  Doing the best we could to interpret that applicant’s Notice of Motion, the applicant stated that our decision was wrong in holding that there was no substance in the applicant’s application, and that his application was not true.  The applicant further stated that he did not complain about his lawyers due to his fear of being picked out. He further complained that he did not have time to deal with the bundles.

1.4  The applicant’s affirmation stated that we were wrong in law in holding there was no state acquiescence or that we failed to find out details of the current situation in his home country.

1.5  The applicant’s written submissions is a regurgitation of his background information, and lengthy outlines of general non-refoulement legal principles without any focus to the particulars of the applicant’s own case.

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, supporting affirmation 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 great 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 document.

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 is dismissed.