RAHMAN MOHAMMAD HAFIZUR v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 549/2018

[2019] HKCA 721

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 549 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 158 OF 2018)

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

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

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  This court (Hon Yuen JA and Lisa Wong J) handed down judgment on 2 April 2019 ([2019] HKCA 375) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against an order of DHCJ Josiah Lam given on 29 October 2018 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review concerning his non‑refoulement claim. The facts and issues in the appeal before the Court of Appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.

2.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion together with his supporting affirmation on 29 April 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 

3.  The applicant applied for an extension of time to lodge his written submissions which, pursuant to Practice Directions, were originally due on 14 May 2019.  The Registrar of Civil Appeals directed on 15 May 2019 that unless the applicant lodged his written submissions by 4 p.m. on 31 May 2019, the applicant shall be debarred from lodging any written submissions, and he shall be deemed to rely only on the representations made in the Notice of Motion and the supporting affirmation in his application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“Unless Order”).  The Registrar of Civil Appeals further directed that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  We agree it is appropriate to determine this application on paper.

4.  The applicant, however, only lodged his written submissions on 6 June 2019.  He had not applied for another extension of time, and failed to give any reasons for the delay.  In accordance with the Unless Order, the applicant is therefore debarred from relying on his written submissions. 

5.  The applicant stated in his Notice of Motion that (sic):

“- The claims that the judgment has made stated is no substance in the grounds of the application is not true.

- On the strength of the grounds not made a complain about the poor performance of his duty lawyer is due of fearing he will be picked out for misappropriating by the adjudicator.

- The applicant gently did not have enough time to address the bundle.  Rest of the grounds I will submit as soon as possible.”

6.  In the applicant’s supporting affirmation, he regurgitated the grounds which had been advanced before this court, which we have already dealt with in our judgment dated 2 April 2019.

7.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, 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.

8.  No question of great general or public importance has been identified in the grounds in the Notice of Motion.

9.  Nor do we see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.  By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion dated 29 April 2019 is dismissed.