RE BRAR MANDEEP SINGH

CACV 340/2018

[2019] HKCA 165

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 340 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 481 OF 2017)

________________________

________________________

_______________________

J U D G M E N T

_______________________

Hon Yeung Ag CJHC (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  By a judgment dated 14 December 2018, this Court (Yeung Acting CJHC, Barma JA and L Chan J) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock (“the Judge”) given on 18 July 2018 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review. The intended judicial review was against the decision of Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 31 July 2017 rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement protection claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment at [2018] HKCA 937.

3.  By a notice of motion dated 27 December 2018, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

4.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant set out the following grounds:

(i)  The Judges have not noted what has been discussed in the appeal;

(ii)  It is uncertain what issues have been addressed and not addressed.  The Judges simply disposed of the case by saying there are no viable grounds, this does not amount to careful consideration especially in the case of a non-refoulement claim where life and limb are at risk.  The Judges have clearly failed to acknowledge the traumatic experiences he has personally gone through which the Judges have not experienced;

(iii)  The fact that none of the authorities insofar have taken careful measures or care in handling a non-refoulement case and merely treated it as any other cases is bewildering.

5.  In compliance with the directions given by Master Au-yeung on 2 January 2019, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 10 January 2019.  In his written submissions, the applicant reiterated the grounds of appeal as set out in his Notice of Motion.

6.  We have duly considered the applicant’s notice of motion and his written submissions.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, this application is processed on papers without any oral hearing.

7.  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.  Here, the applicant made general complaints that this Court failed to consider his case carefully and failed to acknowledge his past experience in his home country.  These allegations are without substance and lack particulars and thus do not constitute viable grounds of appeal. The applicant did not have any reasonably arguable basis to challenge the Judge’s findings.

8.  For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 14 December 2018, we did not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s order.  None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion or in his written submissions involve an arguable point or a question of great general or public importance. The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) are not met.

9.  Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his notice of motion.