RE AHMED ADIL

CAMP 31/2021

[2021] HKCA 1130

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 31 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 273 of 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.  On 30 June 2021, this Court handed down our judgment[1] refusing to extend the time for the applicant to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 2 July 2020 refusing his leave to apply for judicial review.    

2.  On 12 July 2021, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  He has also put in a written submission on 26 July 2021 to support his application.

3.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion 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.  Under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, 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 stated the following as grounds of the application:

(1)  The applicant does not wish to go back to his country because his life is in danger there.

(2)  The situation in the applicant’s country is very bad.  He will face hardship if he returns to his country.

(3)  The Torture Claims Appeal Board had significantly relied on source of news which was not officially recognized. 

7.  The applicant’s written submission is substantially identical to the written submission in support of his application for extension of time made to this Court.  The additional point made in the written submission to support the notice of motion states that there were many incidents of mob lynching in India with people being killed, and the RSS, BJP party, which is the ruling party in India, is involved in such activities.  The applicant’s creditor belongs to this political party, and he had threatened to kill him with this kind of mob lynching.  

8.  We are of the view that the matters advanced by the applicant do not constitute proper grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  Critically, they all relate to the circumstances of the applicant, and do not involve any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b).  Further, for the reasons we gave at [18] of our judgment, they are not reasonably arguable.  

9.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we refuse the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  Accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion.