RE VIJENDER KUMAR

CACV 336/2019

[2020] HKCA 214

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 336 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 839 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

____________________

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 3 December 2019, this Court (Cheung and Chu JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 12 July 2019 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 10 December 2019, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  We will deal with the application on paper.

1.4  The applicant states in the notice of motion that he is seeking non-refoulement as he believes his life is in danger.  He needs time to solve his problems.  

1.5  In his written submission, the applicant repeats the contents of his notice of motion.  He elaborates on matters including state acquiescence, his enemies are looking for him and the risk of death and torture in police custody.

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 10 December 2019 is dismissed.