|
CACV 24/2020
[2020] HKCA 854
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 24 OF 2020
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 139 of 2018)
________________________
| RE |
GURJANT SINGH |
Applicant |
________________________
Before: Hon Cheung, Chu and Barma JJA in Court
Date of Judgment: 27 October 2020
________________________
J U D G M E N T
________________________
Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:
1. On 14 August 2020, this Court handed down our judgment[1] dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 8 January 2020 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.
2. On 31 August 2020, the applicant filed a notice of motion together with an affirmation to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has also put in a written submission to support his application.
3. Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, affirmation and written submission, 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 materials before us.
4. Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that 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.
5. The applicant has not put forward any proposed grounds of appeal. The notice of motion and the affirmation merely stated that it was due to lack of knowledge and insufficient resources that the applicant was late. We take this to be a reference to the applicant’s failure to comply with the Court’s directions to lodge written submission, as a result of which the hearing date of his appeal was vacated and the appeal was processed on the papers.
6. In the written submission, the applicant complained that the Board ignored many things in his case and that the real situation in his home country was different from what the Board thought. He also said that he had suffered a lot and his life would further worsen if he were to return to his country. It was said that he did not have the strength to fight against the police and other authorities, and that it was very difficult to get justice in the corrupt system. The applicant asked to be allowed to stay in Hong Kong until his problem in his country is resolved.
7. What was said in the written submission do not constitute viable grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. Importantly, the applicant has not identified any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b). Further, as pointed out in [13] of our judgment, the applicant has not identified any error in the Judge’s decision and reasons. The applicant has also not identified any error in this Court’s conclusion that there is no merit in his appeal against the Judge’s decision. His intended appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is unarguable.
8. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
9. As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal is not met, we dismiss the notice of motion.
| (Peter Cheung) |
(Carlye Chu) |
(Aarif Barma) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.
|