RE MGU

CAMP 15/2019

[2019] HKCA 1343

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 15 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 117 OF 2017)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  By a judgment dated 14 August 2019 ([2019] HKCA 853), the Court of Appeal refused to grant an extension of time for the applicant to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Marlene Ng (as she then was) (“the Judge”) dated 10 October 2017 in HCAL 117/2017 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 24 March 2017.

2.  By a notice of motion dated 20 August 2019, the applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the grounds that:

“- the claims that the judgment has made stated is no substance in the grounds of the application is not true;

- on the strength of the grounds not made a complaint about the poor performance of his duty lawyer is due to learning he will be picked out for misappropriating by the adjudicator; and

- the applicant gently (sic) did not have enough time to address the bundle.  Rest of the grounds I will submit as soon possible.”

3.  Pursuant to the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 4 September 2019, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 20 September 2019.  In his written submissions, he set out the background of his case and mentioned some provisions / articles of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap. 383), Basic Law, United Nations Convention Against Torture as well as some case authorities in relation to non-refoulement protection claim.  He further stated that the decision-makers were under a duty to adhere to the high standards of fairness and procedural fairness in making their decisions.

4.  The Registrar of Civil Appeals also directed that unless the court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  As it is appropriate to do so, this application is processed on paper without an oral hearing.

5.  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.  Here, the Board dismissed the applicant’s case on the ground that the alleged harm done to the applicant originated from a private land dispute with his cousin with political background and there was no evidence of any alleged hostile act as having been instigated or authorised by the government.  As stated at [18] of our judgment, we agreed with the Judge that the Board’s decision was well found and flawless.  In our view, the grounds of appeal as set out in the notice of motion and the written submissions are general and vague assertions and cannot constitute viable grounds of appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

6.  For the reasons that we gave in our judgment, we do not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s decision and order.  None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion and his written submissions involves an arguable point or a question of great general or public importance.  We do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) either.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is not met.

7.  Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his notice of motion.