RE SALEATH RAJ ARUL JOTHI

CACV 381/2020

[2021] HKCA 698

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 381 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 614/2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 7 April 2021, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s judgment of 23 March 2021. In that judgment the Court dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan of 12 August 2020.

2.  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 (“CFA”) at the discretion of this Court or the CFA 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 CFA for decision.

3.  In the Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the CFA, the Applicant raised the following matters in support of this application:

“ I would like to inform to Court of Final Appeal. There is Some Error in my case. I am totaly disagree with the decision of authorities and Court because There were Totally Relay on news and Post on web which is not Real matter in actual. Because its toward to my life in my home land in India. I do not want to go back to India because my life still danger in my home country in India.” [sic]

4.  The Applicant lodged his written submissions in support on 20 April 2021.  In those submissions he argued that the determination of his claim by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) was procedurally unfair because he was never provided with proper legal and language assistance.  He argued that the Board’s decision was never read back to him in his language, and as such, he did not thoroughly know how his claim was determined and thus it was not easy for him to appeal.

5.  The Applicant also submitted that there was procedural unfairness due to the public policy of trying to dispose of non-refoulement claims as quickly as possible, and that such policy is discriminatory.

6.  Most of the Applicant’s arguments had already been addressed and rejected in this Court’s judgment of 23 March 2021.  The argument on lack of language assistance is raised for the first time and should not be entertained at the late stage of application for leave to appeal to the CFA.  In any event, such contention has no merit because the Applicant was able to bring his application for judicial review in English (on 11 April 2018) shortly after the Board’s decision of 6 April 2018.

7.  In the circumstances, we do not consider that there is any question of great general or public importance or which otherwise ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination.

8.  For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA, and dismiss the Applicants’ Notice of Motion accordingly.