RE TAROK DAS alias TAROK CHANDRA DAS

CAMP 238/2020

[2021] HKCA 1363

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 238 OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2621 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

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

I. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.  On 7 June 2021, this Court (Cheung and Chu JJA)  gave the decision dismissing the applicant’s renewed application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung given on 8 November 2019 in which he refused to grant leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board.

2.  The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion and supporting affirmation filed on 28 July 2021, for leave to appeal against our decision to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant further lodged written submissions in support out of time.

3.  Having considered the applicant’s documents, 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 applicant’s notice of motion is over three weeks late.  According to section 24(2)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘Ordinance’), the applicant’s notice of motion ought to have been filed with the Court within 28 days of our extension decision. Under section 24(5)  of the Ordinance, the Court may extend the time for filing of notice of motion, but good grounds must be shown before the Court’s discretion can be exercised.  An important consideration in this regard is the merits of the intended appeal: Full Wisdom Holdings Limited v Traffic Stream Infrastructure Co Ltd & Ors, CACV 266/2003, 27 July 2004 at [7] and [10].

5.  The applicant is over three weeks (23 days)  late.  The applicant stated in his affirmation that ‘out of sedule (sic)  time as I did not get the result from the court’.  No further details were provided.  This is a bare allegation unsupported by any explanation.  We do not accept such bare allegation.  We then need to consider the merits of his intended appeal.

6.  The applicant provided no grounds of appeal in his notice of motion.  He merely repeated the fact that the Courts have rejected his claims in the appeal process.  He stated that he did not find justice.

7.  In his written submissions lodged out of time, the applicant repeated factual matters of his case, the fact that he had been rejected in his appeal process, and that he wishes to get justice in the Court of Final Appeal.

II.  Legal principles

8.  Section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance states that 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.

III.  Our view

9.  The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion 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 Ordinance.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his documents.

10.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance.

IV.  Disposition

11.  For these reasons, the notice of motion is dismissed.