RE MANVIR SINGH

CACV 67/2021

[2022] HKCA 1411

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 67 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 860 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  This court handed down judgment on 31 December 2021 ([2021] HKCA 1995)  dismissing the applicant’s appeal against an order of DHCJ Bruno Chan (“the Judge”)  given on 9 February 2021 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review in respect of his non-refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal before this court, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.  On 17 February 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal this Court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  However, it was out of time, as s.24(2)  of Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (“HKCFAO”)  Cap. 484 stipulates that the deadline for filing an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal is 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from.  The deadline for filing the Notice of Motion expired in January 2022. 

4.  However, under s.24(5)  and s.24(6)  of the HKCFAO, the Court of Appeal has a discretion to extend the appeal period even though the application for extension is not made until after the expiration of that period.  In the exercise of our discretion whether or not to extend the appeal period, we should consider the length of the delay, the applicant’s reasons for the delay, the merits of the intended appeal, and whether any prejudice would be suffered by the other party. 

5.  In the present case, the applicant was late by almost 3 weeks, which is not insignificant.  He explained in the Notice of Motion and his supporting affirmation that he was late because he had no knowledge and resources.  He urged the Court to allow him to proceed with his case further. 

6.  As to the merits of the intended appeal, s.22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance 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.

7.  The applicant did not provide any ground for his intended appeal in the Notice of Motion apart from stating the above reason for his delay in filing the Notice of Motion.

8.  Pursuant to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 23 February 2022.  As it is appropriate to do so, the Notice of Motion is determined on paper without an oral hearing.

9.  In his written submissions, he said:

(1)  “So many things which are related with” his case were ignored and all the decisions were not transparent.  The actual situation of his country is different from what the decision-makers thought.

(2)  It is dangerous for him to return to his home country as his enemies are waiting for him.

(3)  The police and law authorities are corrupt and assistance would only be rendered to those who are powerful and rich.

(4)  He urged the court to help him stay in Hong Kong until his problem is solved.

10.  The applicant referred in the submissions to the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board, and his intended appeal did not challenge the reasons of this court.  Even assuming his Notice of Motion was filed in time or his delay was reasonably explained, there are no valid grounds of appeal.  No question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by s.22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.  

11.  Nor do we see any basis for leave on the “or otherwise” limb under s.22(1)(b).

12.  By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion filed on 17 February 2022 is dismissed.