RE KASHIF ANWAR

CACV 5/2019

[2019] HKCA 817

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 795 OF 2017)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1)   Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal

1.1   On 17 May 2019, this Court handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung given on 24 December 2018 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

1.2   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.  We will not repeat them here.

1.3   The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion dated 20 May 2019, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  We will deal with this application on paper.

1.4   Some of the matters stated in the Notice of Motion are unintelligible.  From what we can understand, the applicant stated that there was ‘some error of law’ in his decision.  He stated that there was overwhelming evidence of violence towards him.  He complained that there was general bias and unreasonableness.  All of these complaints lacked any meaningful particulars.

1.5   The applicant in his written submissions lodged on 3 June 2019 was a re-run of arguments that have been or could have been made before the Director and/or the Board.  He complained against the Director for failing to consider extended state acquiescence.  He then goes on to repeat his background information, and further complained that the Pakistan police were incompetent in their duties of protecting people.  He made reference to various country of origin information. He made similar complaints of the Board failing to consider extended state acquiescence in the following paragraphs.  He accused the Board of not advising him to obtain medical evidence, when it is trite that the burden remained with the applicant to produce medical evidence in the first place.  In any event, none of these complaints raises any grounds of great general or public importance.

2)  Legal principles

2.   Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

3)  Our view

3.1   The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO. Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion and written submissions.

3.2   We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

4)  Disposition

4.   For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 20 May 2019 is dismissed.