SATISH KUMAR AND OTHERS v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD/ NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 571/2018

[2019] HKCA 573

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 571 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 884 OF 2017)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  This court (Lam VP and Yuen JA) handed down judgment on 3 April 2019 ([2019] HKCA 388) dismissing the applicants’ appeal against an order by Mrs Justice Campbell-Moffat (“the Judge”) given on 29 November 2018 refusing the applicants’ application for leave to apply for judicial review concerning their non‑refoulement claim. 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 and will not be repeated.

2.  The applicants subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion on 16 April 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and lodged their written submissions on 7 May 2019.

3.  The applicants stated in their Notice of Motion that:

“Dear Sir/Madam,

I want to request you for the decision you made for us is error.  We want you to look for the case again.  Its danger for me in India.  I don’t want to go back in my situation.  Please look for my case again, my children are not safe there so for sake of my protection, I want you to look for my case again.  I expect a good decision from [you] for my family.  So please look for us for word [from] you.”

4.  The applicants’ written submission repeated that they were unsafe in India and that they did not have a lawyer in Hong Kong.

5.  The Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed on 29 April 2019 that the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  We agree it is appropriate to determine this application on paper.

6.  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 at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, as the case may be, 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.

7.  No question of great general or public importance has been identified in the grounds in the Notice of Motion.

8.  Nor do we see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.  In the circumstances, we cannot find any basis for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

10.  By virtue of the above, the Notice of Motion dated 16 April 2019 is dismissed.