RE WAKLIN GRACIAM DOPING

CACV 153/2021

[2021] HKCA 2014

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 153 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1306 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Lisa Wong J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Application

1.  Before the court is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”)  against this court’s judgment dated 17 September 2021 ([2021] HKCA 1371)  (“Judgment”), dismissing the applicant’s appeal from the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 25 March 2021 ([2021] HKCFI 731)  refusing him leave to apply for judicial review of the decision dated 29 June 2018 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board concerning his non-refoulement claim.

Paper disposal appropriate

2.  Pursuant to the direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeals (“Registrar”), unless this court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing.  Having considered the material available to us, we agree with the Registrar that a paper disposal is appropriate in this case.

Statutory threshold for leave to appeal to the CFA

3.  Under s 22(1)(b)  of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484), an appeal shall lie to the CFA at the discretion of the Court of Appeal (“CA”)  or the CFA from any civil judgment of the CA 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.

Applicant’s contentions in support of leave to appeal to CFA

4.  In seeking leave to appeal to the CFA, the applicant asserted in the notice of motion filed on 5 October 2021 as follows:

“I would like to appeal on the decision of the Court of Appeal judge for the order that my application be dismissed dated 17 of September 2021.” (sic)

5.  Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1 and paragraph 1 of the directions given by the Registrar on 19 October 2021, on the same date, the applicant lodged written submission, by which he pleaded for a reconsideration of his case and reiterated his wish to continue to stay in Hong Kong as it was not yet safe for him return to the Philippines.

Discussion

6.  There is no attempt whatsoever by the applicant to engage the reasons we have given in the Judgment.

7.  The applicant has plainly not raised any issue for determination by the CFA, whether of great, general or public importance or otherwise. 

8.  Nor do we see any scope to grant leave under the “or otherwise” limb.

9.  As neither of the statutory criteria under s 22(1)(b)  for leave to appeal to the CFA is met, we dismiss the notice of motion.