RE DARAMOLA LOUKMAN MOUNIRU

CAMP 13/2020

[2020] HKCA 630

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 13 OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 136 OF 2018)

__________________________

__________________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.  On 11 June 2020, this Court (Chu and Barma JJA) handed down our judgment^[1] (“the Judgment”) refusing to give leave to the applicant to appeal the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 3 October 2019 dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 29 June 2020, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has also lodged a written submission to support his application. 

3.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the papers before us.

4.  The notice of motion did not set out any proposed grounds of appeal.  It only stated that the applicant did not agree with this Court’s decision and wanted to go to the Court of Final Appeal to get justice.

5.  The written submission is substantially the same as the written submission lodged on 21 April 2020 in support of the application made to this Court for leave to appeal.  It additionally complained that the Board acted in a procedurally unfair manner, failed to properly assess the applicant’s credibility and had relied on “source of news which is not officially recognised or is simply hearsay”.  It also argued that the Court has failed to apply the principles of irrationality and procedural fairness.      

6.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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 Court of Final Appeal for decision.

7.  The matters put forward in the notice of motion and the written submission do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  First, they all relate to the applicant’s personal circumstances and his claim, and do not involve any question of great general or public importance.  Second, for the reasons we gave at paragraph 16 of our judgment, the arguments put forward in the written submission are unarguable.  Third, the additional complaints levelled against the Board were not raised as a ground for judicial review before the Judge or in the application for leave to appeal made to this Court.  It is not the practice of the Court of Appeal to grant leave to appeal on new points that were not canvassed in the application before it.[2]  Nor is it the practice of the Court of Final Appeal to grant leave on new fact-sensitive points not argued in the Court of Appeal.[3]

8.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.  As the statutory requirement for giving leave to appeal are not met, we dismiss the notice of motion.