RE MOHAMMED RONI KHAN

CAMP 187/2019

[2020] HKCA 499

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 187 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 721 of 2018)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.  On 22 January 2020, this Court (Chu and Barma JJA) handed down our judgment[1] refusing to give leave to the applicant to appeal out of time against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam given on 6 March 2019 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.     

2.  On 19 May 2020, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  He had also put in a written submission 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.  Section 24(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be filed within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from.  Under section 24(5), the Court of Appeal may extend the time for the filing of the notice of motion.

5.  Due to the public health risks caused by COVID-19, the registries of the High Court were closed between 29 January and 8 March 2020.  By reason of section 71(1A) of the General Clauses and Interpretation Ordinance, Cap. 1, the time for the applicant to file a notice of motion expired on 9 March 2020 when the High Court registries reopened.   The applicant’s notice of motion is late by more than two months.  He has given no explanation for his delay.  We, however, note that due to developments in the public health situation, the registries of the High Court were closed for a second time from 23 March to 5 May 2020.  Having regard to the unusual circumstances since 29 January 2020 and the fact that the applicant is a litigant in person, we are prepared to extend the time for the applicant to file the notice of motion.        

6.  We turn next to consider the merits of the application.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

7.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, 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.

8.  The notice of motion did not set out any ground of appeal. The applicant only stated that he was not satisfied with the court’s decision and wished to go to the Court of Final Appeal.

9.  In the written submission, the applicant mentioned that after he left Bangladesh the Awami League came to power and his enemies were their supporters.  He also stated that unlike Hong Kong which is safe, his home country is a land of terrorist and the government is corrupt.  He contended that the decision of the Board and the judgments of the court are all wrong and he did not get justice.          

10.  We are of the view that the points advanced by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  They relate only 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, while the applicant said that the Board’s decision and the court’s judgments were wrong, he had not given any particulars or identified any specific errors.   

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

12.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.