RE EDWEAD JOHN also known as EDWEAD SHAIBU

CAMP 99/2019

[2021] HKCA 219

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 99 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 76/2017)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 23 April 2020, this court (Chu JA and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the judge”) on 8 February 2018 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the application, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1]  We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion dated 27 May 2020, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

4.  In the affirmation dated 27 May 2020, the applicant advanced the following grounds of appeal:

“1.  To seek for consideration from the court to continue my case.

2.  To plead with the court for an extension to appeal against the decision of the court.

3.  To request for oral hearing of my case.

4.  To further seek for more updates from the ongoing investigations regarding my security by my family members and friends who know much about my case in my country if in case of returning back.”

5.  Because the applicant failed to comply with the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 28 May 2020, the applicant was debarred from lodging any written submissions and the application was dealt with on paper on the basis of the materials already filed before the court.

6.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and affirmation, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.

7.  The matters stated by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.  

8.  All of the grounds of appeal advanced by the applicant lacked particulars and we are of the view that these grounds are not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal. 

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

10.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 27 May 2020 is dismissed.