RE AZHARUDDIN SK

CACV 29/2020

[2020] HKCA 848

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 29 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1322/2018)

__________________________

__________________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 8 September 2020, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) against this Court’s judgment of 25 August 2020. In that judgment the Court (Lam VP and Wong J) dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung (“the Judge”) on 14 January 2020 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the 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.

3.  In his Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the CFA, the Applicant set out the following matters:

“ I would like to inform you that there is an error in law in my decision. The decision maker just relied on COI information and my previous facts which were in favor in rejecting my claim.

I believe that the decisions were not reasonable and fair. Indeed the right to life is protected under Article 28 of the basic law and under Article 2 of the bill of right. The right to life is mainly protected by the criminal law and it must be protected from extra-judicial killing that I may face if I am deported back to my country.

The learned judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of procedural unfairness to the decision of the director whereby the director and Adjudicator was required to give reasons justifying the decision.

The judge did not apply the law properly.” (sic)

4.  The Applicant lodged his written submissions on 15 September 2020.  Those submissions are identical to those that the Applicant had previously submitted on 22 June 2020 for the substantive appeal hearing. It had already been explained in the judgment of 25 August 2020 why those submissions could not assist the Applicant in the appeal.

5.  In our judgment, the Applicant has not raised any reasonably arguable ground of appeal on the merit of his intended appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.   

6.  Further, we 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.

7.  For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA, and dismiss the Applicant’s Notice of Motion.