|
CACV 627/2020
[2021] HKCA 1029
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 627 OF 2020
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 858 OF 2017)
________________________
| RE: |
WALGAMPOLAGE SIRINUWAN OSADA BUDDHIKA PERERA |
Applicant |
________________________
Before : Hon Cheung JA, B Chu J in Court
Date of Decision : 21 July 2021
________________________
D E C I S I O N
________________________
Hon B Chu J (giving the Decision of the Court) :
1) Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal
1.1 On 10 June 2021, this Court handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 13 June 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 21 June 2021, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.
1.4 From what we could gather, in his notice of motion the applicant stated that he was not satisfied with our judgment because he was unable to submit his written submissions in time and before he could submit his supporting documents. He still has some important documents to submit but because of the Covid issue in Sri Lanka and the warrant against him for keeping illegal weapon and therefore if he goes back his life will be in danger because so many weapon cases suspects were killed in June and 3 people were killed in police custody. He requested the Court to give him time to submit his supporting documents including his medical certificates because of his health problems, he is still going to clinics to for treatment.
1.5 The applicant lodged a letter of written submissions on 5 July 2021. From what we could gather, he repeated that he was unable to submit all documents and written submissions to the Court before and that the reason was that he was not feeling well and because of heart problem and everyday he needed to take a tablet many times and that he was hospitalized. He therefore begged the Court to give him another opportunity to submit all his documents and because if he went back, his life would be in danger and he needed to submit some documents with his written submissions. He had attached 9 pages of copies of documents amongst which was an English translation of Character Certificate dated 22 October 2020 purportedly issued by a Justice of Peace for the Whole Island in Makuluduwa, Piliyandala, a summons purported to be issued on 21 August 2017 by the Magistrate’s Court in Kesbewa, a purported message form issued by the Sri Lanka Police on 2012.01.05, and copies of 3 medical appointment slips at the Hong Kong North District Hospital, the last one being for Medical Echocardiography on 16 April 2021.
1.6 The applicant said in particular the message form issued by the Sri Lanka Police was an important document as that was the search warrant to search his house and was given by his enemy who would like to take revenge on him and always made trouble for the applicant and that the enemy has connection with all the gangsters and police department and that he would come to his home to search and threaten his family and asked about a weapon and that they tried to file a fake case against him.
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 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.
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 21 June 2021 is dismissed.
| (Peter Cheung) |
(Bebe Pui Ying Chu) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Judge of the Court
of First Instance |
Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
|