RE JEWEL

CAMP 11/2020

[2020] HKCA 824

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 11 OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 918/2018)

____________________

____________________

____________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 12 August 2020, the Applicant applied by a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) against this Court’s judgment of 17 June 2020. In that judgment we refused to grant extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam on 15 August 2019.

2.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the CFA at the discretion of this Court or the CFA 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 CFA for decision.

3.  In his Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the CFA, the Applicant stated that he disagreed with this Court’s judgment, that both the Director of Immigration and Torture Claims Appeal Board did not consider the threat to his life, and that nobody understood his problem.

4.  Notwithstanding the acknowledgment by the Applicant on 12 August 2020 of the requirement under Practice Direction 2.1 and the direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeals of 13 August 2020, the Applicant has not lodged any written submissions in support of this application as directed under paragraph 3 of the Practice Direction. 

5.  The Court therefore processed the application on the papers based on materials already before us.

6.  The ground set out in the Notice of Motion does not raise any reasonably arguable ground of appeal on the merit of the Applicant’s claim or any discernible or arguable ground for disturbing our judgment. 

7.  In the circumstances, we do not consider that there is any question of great general or public importance or which otherwise ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination.

8.  For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA, and dismiss the Applicant’s Notice of Motion.