RE AHMAD FAHEEM

CACV 272/2019

[2019] HKCA 1342

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 272 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 801 of 2017)

________________________

________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

1.  On 30 September 2019, this Court handed down our judgment[1] dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 13 June 2019 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 14 October 2019, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

3.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of his notice of motion and written submission.

4.  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.

5.  The notice of motion stated that there are small errors in the decision because the applicant never got any oral hearing for his appeal, and he wanted to explain his situation and the real situation in his country.  It was said that the applicant’s enemies are very dangerous and powerful and have connection with politicians and the police, and can harm his life.  

6.  In response to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on lodging of written submission, the applicant wrote to the court on 23 October 2019, in which he stated that he could not return to Pakistan because his life will be in danger.  He also stated that his dependant visa application is still pending, and enclosed a copy of his marriage certificate to show he was married in January 2019 to a Hong Kong resident. 

7.  The matters stated in the notice of motion and the applicant’s letter do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

8.  Firstly, the applicant has not identified any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b).  What was stated in the notice of motion and written submission relate only to the circumstances of the applicant’s case.  Secondly, for the reasons we gave in [11] of our Judgment, the complaint about no oral hearing is unarguable, and the pending dependant visa application has no relevance.

9.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.  For the above reasons, the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal is not met.  Accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion.