RE AGAMA GEORGE HINNEH

CAMP 86/2018

[2021] HKCA 1845

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 86 OF 2018

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 257 OF 2017)

________________________

________________________

________________________

D E C I S I O N

________________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

I.  Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (Out of Time)

1.  On 2 November 2018, this Court (Cheung and Chu JJA)  dismissed the applicant’s renewed application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 20 April 2018 in which he refused to grant leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board.

2.  The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion and supporting affirmation filed on 16 August 2021, for leave to appeal out of time against our decision to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has not lodged written submissions in support of the application by the stipulated deadline under the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals which the applicant has signed on 16 August 2021.  

3.  Having considered the applicant’s documents, 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 documents in the case.

4.  The applicant’s notice of motion is over two years and eight months late.  According to section 24(2)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘Ordinance’), the applicant’s notice of motion ought to have been filed with the Court within 28 days of our decision in 2018.  Under section 24(5)  of the Ordinance, the Court may extend the time for filing of notice of motion, but good grounds must be shown before the Court’s discretion can be exercised.  An important consideration in this regard is the merits of the intended appeal: Full Wisdom Holdings Limited v Traffic Stream Infrastructure Co Ltd & Ors, CACV 266/2003, 27 July 2004 at [7] and [10].

5.  The applicant is over two years and eight months late.  The applicant stated in his affirmation that ‘I am the applicant herein.  I am requested to court I am late filling could you please accept my application and give to permission notice of motion bundle of thanks’. No further details were provided.  This is a bare allegation unsupported by any explanation.  We do not accept such bare allegation.  We then need to consider the merits of his intended appeal.

6.  In his notice of motion, the applicant merely stated :

‘ I am not happy about the rule of court decision so I am appealing to court to reopen my case again. My life is danger in my origin country that’s why I am not going back to home of travel (illegible). I have great peril I am requesting to court and immigration department please safe my life bundle of thanks’

II.  Legal principles

7.  Section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance states that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

III.  Our view

8.  The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion do not constitute grounds for granting leave 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 in accordance with section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his documents.

9.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance.

IV.  Disposition

10.  For these reasons, the notice of motion is dismissed.