RE MOHAMMED ISRAIL

CACV 381/2019

[2020] HKCA 187

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 381 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 766 of 2017)

________________________

________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.  On 13 December 2019, this Court (Chu and Barma JJA) handed down our judgment[1] dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock (“the Judge”) given on 23 July 2019 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 24 December 2019, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant lodged a written submission on 21 January 2020 in support of the 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 materials before us.

4.  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.

5.  The notice of motion did not set out any ground of appeal.  After referring to this Court’s decision, it went to state as follows:

“I am not satisfy [sic]. I want justice. Those two honourable judges did not give me correct decision. And I have no way except going to the Court of Final Appeal. I wish the Court of Final Appeal will think about me and give a correct order.”

6.  In the written submission, the applicant complained about the screening interview with the immigration officer.  He said the lawyer did not help him and the interpreter only interpreted the conversations but did not translate his bundle of letters.  The applicant also complained that he did not have lawyer to assist him in his appeal to the Board and his application for leave to apply for judicial review.  He argued that, without legal assistance, he could not raise good point for his leave application.

7.  We are of the view that the matters stated in the notice of motion and the written submission do not constitute viable grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  Importantly, the applicant has not identified any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b).  Further, for the reasons we gave in [14] of our judgment, the applicant’s intended judicial review was premature and bound to fail.  His intended appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is unarguable. 

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

9.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal is not met, we dismiss the notice of motion.