RE KHAN MUHAMMAD ARSHAD

CAMP 95/2020

[2021] HKCA 217

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 95 OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 998 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

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

1)   Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal

1.1.  On 17 November 2020, this Court (Kwan VP and Cheung JA) gave the decision dismissing the applicant’s renewed application for an extension of time to appeal (‘extension decision’) against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 18 November 2019 in which he refused to grant extension of time for leave for judicial review.

1.2.  The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 8 December 2020, for leave to appeal against our extension decision to the Court of Final Appeal.

1.3.  The applicant stated in his notice of motion that there is error of law in the assessment of his case. He stated that country of origin information which was not in his favour was used against him.  He stated that there was overwhelming evidence of violence towards him. In his written submissions, he stated that the Deputy High Court Judge never heard him in person.  This is not true[1]. His submissions then shifted to focus on there being a lack of legal representation in his right to life under Bill of Rights Article 2 (“BOR 2”) assessment.  He further stated there was a lack of language assistance to him.

2)  Legal principles

2.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’) 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.

3)  Our view

3.1.  The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion and written submissions 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 HKCFAO.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his documents.

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

4)  Disposition

4.  For these reasons, the notice of motion filed on 8 December 2020 is dismissed.