RE CHAUHAN RAM PRAVESH

CAMP 200/2021

[2022] HKCA 455

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 200 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 865 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 22 December 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion together with a supporting affirmation to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s (Cheung and Au JJA)  judgment of 24 November 2021 (“the Judgment”)  ([2021] HKCA 1744). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s reapplication for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Deputy Judge”)  dated 30 December 2020, refusing the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review (“the Leave Decision”)  ([2020] HKCFI 2659).

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

3.  Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”)  provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this Court or the Court of Final Appeal 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.

4.  In his Notice of Motion filed on 22 December 2021 and written submissions lodged on 3 January 2022, the applicant advanced the same arguments as previously submitted to this Court in his renewed application for extension of time to appeal against the Leave Decision.[1] In essence, he claimed that the Court failed to consider all applicable grounds for non-refoulement claim; that the Board acted in a procedurally unfair manner without properly assessing his credibility and that high standards of fairness were required in the determination of a torture claim.

5.  In his supporting affirmation filed on 22 December 2021, he claimed that he did not know what to do as a lay person so he was late in filing his Notice of Motion.  This is misplaced as the Notice of Motion was filed within time in accordance with section 24(2)  of the HKCFAO.

6.  In our view, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit at all.  It is well established that the Court of Appeal will not allow an application of this nature to be deployed as an occasion for re-running the arguments which had already been canvassed at the appeal: Ho Sin Ying v Chan Yui Ling & Another (unreported, CACV 221/2013, 14 November 2014)  at [2] and [3].  His arguments have already been fully considered and rejected by this Court at [13] - [20] of the Judgment and the applicant failed to identify with specific particulars any error in the Judgment.  As such, nothing set out in the Notice of Motion can be construed as viable ground of appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

7.  In any event, the applicant’s contentions are still fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

8.  Accordingly, the applicant has also failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.

9.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion filed on 22 December 2021 dismissed.