|
CAMP 425/2021
[2022] HKCA 718
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 425 OF 2021
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2519 OF 2018)
____________________
| BETWEEN |
|
|
| |
SUPRIYADI |
Applicant |
| |
and |
|
| |
TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD |
1st Putative Respondent |
| |
DIRECTOR OF IMMIGRATION |
2nd Putative Respondent |
____________________
Before: Hon Au and Chow JJA in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 14 April 2022
Date of Judgment: 26 May 2022
_________________
J U D G M E N T
_________________
Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 23 March 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the order dated 11 February 2021 of Deputy High Court Judge C P Pang refusing to grant to the Applicant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-Refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 15 October 2018.
2. The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion filed on 14 April 2022 (but dated 15 April 2022) for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion and his written submissions dated 28 April 2022, the Applicant repeats his complaints regarding the lack of language and legal assistance, which have been considered by this Court at §15 of the Judgment.
3. Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal 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. No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success. There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.
5. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.
(Thomas Au)
Justice of Appeal |
(Anderson Chow)
Justice of Appeal |
The Applicant, acting in person
|