RE REKHI NAVDEEP SINGH AND OTHERS

CAMP247/2019

[2022] HKCA 60

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 247 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 390/2018)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 24 June 2021, this court (Lam VP, Barma JA and Au JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicants’ application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the judge”) on 17 May 2019 refusing leave to the applicants to apply for judicial review. The applicants had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing their appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting their non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the application, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1] We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicants subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 22 July 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicants stated in the Notice of Motion that there had been a lack of language and legal assistance. They also claimed that “this court had directed us to consider to make an application for legal aid” for the application of the 3^rd and 4^th applicants (who are minors) but their legal aid application was refused.

4.  The applicants lodged a written submission in support of the application on 4 August 2021.  In the written submission, the applicants reiterated the matters raised in the Notice of Motion and identified a number of errors allegedly committed by the judge.

5.  Having considered the applicants’ Notice of Motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicants’ application on the basis of the documents filed.

6.  The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal 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, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters they have raised.  

7.  We have already dealt with the complaints about the alleged lack of language and legal assistance at [22] – [23] of our judgment.  We further note that despite the alleged lack of assistance, the applicants were able to make detailed submissions in this application with reference to our judgment.  We are therefore not satisfied that the applicants suffered any prejudice from the alleged lack of assistance.  We also do not accept that this ground is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

8.  As we have explained in [26] – [33] of our judgment, the lack of legal representation for the 3^rd and 4^th applicants was a mere irregularity which did not have any material impact on the correctness of the Board’s Decision or these proceedings.  This court also did not direct the 3^rd or 4^th applicant to apply for legal aid, as alleged by the applicants.

9.  Having carefully considered the documents filed by the applicants, none of the grounds advanced by the applicants point to any concrete error in our judgment and the documents therefore raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

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

11.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 22 July 2021 is dismissed.