ANMOL SINGH v. MS. BETTY KWAN, ADJUDICATOR (TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD)AND ANOTHER

CAMP 3/2018

[2018] HKCA 454

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 3 OF 2018

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 171 OF 2015)

____________

____________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  By a judgment dated 11 May 2018, this Court (Barma and Poon JJA) dismissed the applicant’s application for leave to appeal out of time against the decision of Chan J of 5 January 2017 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.  By a notice of motion dated 25 May 2018, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against the judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. 

2.  We have duly considered the applicant’s notice of motion and his written submission dated 14 June 2018.  In substance, he reiterated his earlier assertion that his case was not determined in accordance to the high standard of fairness as mentioned in Sakthevel Prabakar v Secretary for Security (2004) 7 HKCFAR 187.

3.  Notwithstanding the applicant’s request, application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is usually processed on the papers.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and skeleton submissions, we do not see any justification for departing from such usual practice.  We consider that the application can be properly disposed of without an oral hearing.  We now hand down our judgment.

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.  Here, the applicant reiterated that there was a cogent explanation for his delay in taking out the summons for extension of time to apply for leave for judicial review.  He also repeated his earlier submission on the merits of his case.

5.  For the reasons that the Court gave in the judgment of 11 May 2018, we do not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s order.  By simply repeating his earlier explanation for the delay and submissions on the merits of his case, the applicant has failed to meet the threshold imposed by section 22(1)(b) to enable him to obtain leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

6.  Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his notice of motion.