RE RAVINDER KUMAR

CAMP 180/2021

[2022] HKCA 1031

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 180 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 283 OF 2017)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  This is the applicant’s Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Kwan VP and Au JA) handed down on 31 January 2022 ([2022] HKCA 114). The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s summons for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock dated 29 September 2017 refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review concerning his non-refoulement claim.

2.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed on 10 February 2022 that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing. The applicant lodged his written submissions on 23 February 2022. Having considered his written submissions and the papers, we think it is appropriate to determine this application on paper and proceed to do so.

3.  The applicant is a national of India. He came to Hong Kong on 22 May 2014 as a visitor and subsequently overstayed. He was arrested by the police on 8 June 2014 and lodged a non-refoulement claim on 10 June 2014. His claim was made on the basis that he will be harmed or killed by Sarabjit Singh and his men because of the applicant’s support for his friend who was embroiled in a land dispute with Sarabjit Singh.

4.  He took out a summons in the court below to seek an extension of time to appeal against the decision of the judge. His application was late for over 3 years. It was refused by Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung on 12 May 2021[1].

5.  On 20 May 2021, the applicant filed a renewed application for extension of time to appeal with the Court of Appeal. The application was dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 31 January 2022 as he failed to show any prospect of success in his intended appeal.

Grounds of appeal

6.  In the Notice of Motion filed on 10 February 2022, the applicant stated the following as his grounds of appeal:

“I would like to infomr [sic] the Honourable Court that there is some error in law in my decision. Decision maker just relied on COL [sic] information and my previous facts which were in favor while rejecting my claim. Acual [sic] life occur different situation then what is mentioned in COL [sic] Information. The Officer and cours [sic] prefers to ignore the overwheming [sic] of the evidence of this violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining. The Decision is betrary [sic] a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly not reasonable.”

7.  The applicant’s further contentions in his written submissions may be summarised as follows:

(1)  The present leave application for judicial review involves question of great general and public importance. The legal issues raised are complex and have not yet been argued in full and have not yet been adjudicated upon by any court. The outcome of the application will not only affect the applicant but will also affect around 2000 torture claims in Hong Kong as well as the procedures currently practised by the Director, the Board and future appeal tribunal.

(2)  High standards of fairness are required in the determination of a torture claim on the part of the decision maker.

(3)  The decision maker is under a duty to act fairly.

Analysis and disposition

8.  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.

9.  The applicant’s grounds and submissions in the present application are just bare assertions which are not supported by particulars or evidence. He failed to show that the Court of Appeal acted unfairly, failed to apply high standards of fairness and/or was wrong in dismissing his application. Furthermore, he has failed to identify what legal issues in this case have not previously been adjudicated by any court and will be of great general or public importance so that they ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b). There is also no basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.  For the above reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss the Notice of Motion filed on 10 February 2022.