|
CACV 456/2020
[2021] HKCA 869
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 456 OF 2020
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 522 OF 2018)
____________________
| RE: |
MD MAMUN OR RASHID |
Applicant |
____________________
Before: Hon Cheung and Au JJA in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 20 May 2021
Date of Judgment: 16 June 2021
_______________
J U D G M E N T
_______________
Hon Au JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 6 May 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s (Cheung and Au JJA) judgment of 19 April 2021 (“the Judgment”) [2021] HKCA 503. In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 12 August 2020 dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.
2. The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the 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 to consider 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) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal (“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.
4. In his Notice of Motion, the applicant raised the grounds of appeal, which in summary, are that while he did not have documents to support his case, he still faced the problem in his home country and asked to stay in Hong Kong to protect his life.
5. In his skeleton submissions of 20 May 2021 filed pursuant to the directions of Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant simply repeated his fear for life if deported to his home country. He also submitted some documents allegedly obtained from Bangladesh Police Department and requested the court to give him an oral hearing so that he could provide more evidence. The documents related to certain reports made to the police concerning various incidents happened in August 2001 and February 2003.
6. In our view, the applicant’s application is totally without merits. None of the matters raised in his Notice of Motion or written submissions identifies any specific errors in the Judgment. These are therefore not viable grounds. Further, the new documents he sought to submit fail to satisfy the criteria of Ladd v Marshal [1954] 1 WLR 1489 because, firstly, he did not elaborate on how the documents would assist his case and, secondly, he did not explain why these documents (despite dated in 2001 and 2003) were not obtained and presented before the Board and the Court below and, thirdly, given our reasons above, we do not think the alleged new documents would have any impact on our decision
7. In the circumstances and in any event, we also do not consider that there is any question of great general or public importance or which otherwise ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination.
8. For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA, and dismiss the applicant’s Notice of Motion.
| (Peter Cheung) |
(Thomas Au) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant acting in person
|