RE HALEEM MUHAMMAD

CACV 211/2021

[2022] HKCA 760

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 211 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2004 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

____________________

J U D G M E N T

____________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

I. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.  On 17 September 2021, this Court (Cheung JA and Lisa Wong J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To given on 21 April 2021 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.  The facts and issues of the appeal as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it are set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 6 October 2021, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his notice of motion the following:

‘ The High Court dismissed my leave to apply for judicial review. The Court of Appeal too dismissed my leave to appeal. I do not agree with these two judgment. I did not get justice. To get justice I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.’

4.  The applicant stated in his written submissions in summary the following points :  

(1.)  There was threat to life in his home country.

(2.)  The applicant’s enemies are strong, influential, politically powerful.

(3.)  No one was there to protect the applicant from his enemies.

II.  Our view

5.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘Ordinance’) 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.

6.  The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance. Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion and written submissions. 

7.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.

III.  Disposition

8.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 6 October 2021 is dismissed.