RE GURPREET SINGH

CAMP 334/2021

[2023] HKCA 36

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 334 OF 2021

(ON AN APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1932 OF 2018)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 13 October 2022, this court handed down a judgment ([2022] HKCA 1511) dismissing the applicant’s renewed application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Lung given on 31 July 2020 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 25 October 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  He has also put in a written submission to support the application.

3.  Having considered the Notice of Motion and written submission, 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 the documents in the case.

4.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim has been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat it.

5.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that 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.

6.  The Notice of Motion states that the judgments of the Court are not good for the applicant and he wants to go to the Court of Final Appeal.

7.  In his written submission, the applicant (an Indian national) says that his family members are in India and he loves his motherland, but he cannot return to India because his life will be under threat as his enemy will kill him.  He also says that the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board do not understand the extent of influence of his enemy when they suggested he could relocate to other parts of Pakistan. In fact, the Board has held that internal relocation in India was possible, but in his submissions the applicant referred to Pakistan. It is also said that not only have they erred, but the officers had also cheated him.  However, the applicant has given no elaboration or particulars on this.  

8.  The matters put forward by the applicant do not amount to viable grounds for the intended appeal.  Importantly, he has failed to identify any question of great general and public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.  Further, they also do not engage with the reasons we gave in the judgment at [18] to [25].   

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

10.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.