RE ELIYAS JOUITH MEARL

CACV 433/2020

[2021] HKCA 1220

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 433 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 173 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 12 July 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”)  against this Court’s judgment of 6 July 2021.[1] In that judgment we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan on 10 June 2020 refusing leave to apply for judicial review and refusing an extension of time to apply for such leave.

2.  Section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484)  provides that an appeal shall lie to the 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 grounds in support:

“ I would like to tell in this grounds that my appeal was rejected by High Court. I respect the judgment and I don’t blame anybody, but still I have real risk and if I go my life become danger it’s a real true, and I submit many document regarding my problem up to whatever I obtain from Sri Lanka. At this moment realy problem for all other nation besid Sinhalese even for journalist too arresting and detain without any proper reason. I am not say this High Commissioner for Human Right for U.N. This is true ground reality. Therefore I am seeking to protect my life and live peacefully thank you.” [sic]

4.  The applicant lodged his written submissions on 23 July 2021.  In those submissions he referred to the political situation in Sri Lanka, stating that all of Sri Lanka is ruled by the Rajapaksa family who are doing great harm to the Tamils, and that the entire country is under military rule, with all the department chairmen appointed from the army.

5.  Further, the applicant reiterated his previous arguments made in the appeal to this Court that his documents had been disregarded, that he needed more time to obtain new documents, and that he would explain all his problems in an oral hearing.  He also enclosed the same documents annexed to his previous submissions.  We had already addressed and rejected those arguments in our judgment of 6 July 2021.

6.  The applicant’s submissions fail to engage with the reasons given in our judgment for dismissing his appeal, and do not raise any discernible or arguable ground for impugning our judgment.  His Notice of Motion and submissions fail to pinpoint any specific error in this Court’s judgment or the judgment of the court below.  Nor has the applicant identified any question of great general or public importance or, indeed, any other intelligible reason why the case ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination.

7.  For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA.  The Notice of Motion is accordingly dismissed.