RE MOHAMMED SABIR

CAMP 11/2021

[2022] HKCA 584

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 11 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 1576 OF 2018)

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

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

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 25 August 2021, this court (Poon CJHC and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Campbell-Moffat J given on 23 June 2020 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board, which dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration.

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 applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed out of time on 12 October 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant simply stated in the Notice of Motion that he wished “to go to the Court of Final Appeal”, without setting out any grounds.

4.  In the affirmation filed on 12 October 2021, the applicant merely acknowledged that the Notice of Motion was filed out of time and asked this court to “accept [his] application”.

5.  In his written submissions lodged on 26 October 2021, the applicant again stated his desire to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and asked this court to allow his application for leave.

6.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, affirmation and written submissions, 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 applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

7.  The applicant did not explain how he eventually came to know about this court’s judgment, nor why his Notice of Motion was lodged out of time. We are of the view that the applicant has failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

8.  In any event, the matters advanced 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 he has raised.

9.  Neither the Notice of Motion, the affirmation nor the written submissions identify any supposed error in our judgment and they 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 filed on 12 October 2021 is dismissed.