RE BEPARI MANIK

CACV 609/2018

[2019] HKCA 780

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 609 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 98/2018)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 2 May 2019, this court (Barma JA and G Lam J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the judge”) on 20 December 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 appeal, 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 20 May 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant said it will be dangerous for him to return.  He also repeated the grounds for seeking leave for judicial review and the grounds of appeal he advanced before this court.

4.  The applicant lodged a written submission in support of the application on 3 June 2019.  This was the same written submission lodged for the appeal before this court.  In it, the applicant repeated the grounds for seeking leave for judicial review and the grounds of appeal he advanced before this court.  He also submitted that he did not receive legal aid in the judicial review leave application and the appeal. 

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submission, 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 Notice of Motion and written submission.

6.  The matters stated by the applicant in the Notice of Motion and written submission 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 in the Notice of Motion and written submission.  

7.  The bare assertion by the applicant that it is unsafe for him to return is not a valid ground of appeal by itself.  As for the lack of legal representation, this court has repeatedly held that the high standard of fairness does not mean that an applicant is entitled to legal representation at all stages of his claim.  The applicant simply repeated the grounds for judicial review and appeal without identifying any error in our judgment. In our view, none of these matters is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal. 

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

9.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 20 May 2019 is dismissed.