RE JASPREET SINGH

CAMP 408/2022, [2024] HKCA 552

On Appeal From [2023] HKCA 1130

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 408 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 40 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

Hon Au JA (giving the judgment of the court):

1.  On 24 October 2023, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this court’s (Yuen and Au JJA) judgment of 5 October 2023 (“the Judgment”) ([2023] HKCA 1130). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s reapplication for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan’s (“the Judge”) dated 8 April 2022, by which the Judge dismissed his application for leave to apply for judicial review ([2022] HKCFI 1008).

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice of considering this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

3.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this court or the Court of Final Appeal 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.

4.  In his Notice of Motion, the applicant stated:

“THE HIGH COURT AND THE COURT OF APPEAL DISMISSED MY LEAVE TO APPLY FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW. I DID NOT GET JUSTICE. I WANT TO GO TO THE COURT OF FINAL APPEAL FOR JUSTICE.” (sic)

5.  Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 7 November 2023.  In those submissions, he repeated the factual basis and procedural history of his non-refoulement claim and asserted that he would be harmed or killed by his enemies if refouled.

6.  In our view, the applicant’s application is devoid of merits.  He fails to give any proper ground of appeal or identify any specific error in the Judgment.  General assertions of his fear if refouled do not constitute proper grounds of appeal: Re Saldua Dorothy Trifalgar [2022] HKCA 627 at [6].  Clearly, his assertions do not constitute proper grounds of appeal.

7.  Further and in any event, even taking it at its highest, those allegations remain fact-specific and do not relate to any question of great general or public importance.

8.  Accordingly, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

9.  For these reasons, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit.  Accordingly, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.