RE MOHAMMAD BABUL AND OTHERS

CAMP 51/2017

[2018] HKCA 492

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 51OF 2017

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 315/2017)

________________________

________________________

___________________

JUDGMENT

___________________

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

1.  On 22 January 2018 the Court (Cheung CJHC and Lam VP) handed down judgment refusing to grant extension of time to the 1^st applicant to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock on 6 November 2017. The principal reason for refusing extension was our conclusion that the intended appeal had no merit.

2.  On 28 May 2018, the 1^st applicant issued a Notice of Motion seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the notice, he said:

“ I would like the Court of Appeal to consider my situation as my life is really in Danger in Bangladesh. There are few cases on me which was by the rulling party and due to the Rulling Party great influence in Government. I been issued the order of imprisonment for 14 years and if I sent back to Bangladesh. I might get killed by other Political imponent.” (sic)

3.  The application was made grossly out of time as the relevant time limit for bringing such application was 28 days from the date of our judgment. In his affirmation of 28 May 2018, the 1^st applicant said he was not aware of the time limit. That is not an acceptable reason for extending time. He also said he took time to prepare the documents which he had recently received from Bangladesh. He did not exhibit those documents in his affirmation. We cannot give weight to this assertion when he did not even show the documents to the Court. In any event, the three grounds of appeal canvassed before us concerned the process before the Board and we cannot see how they could be enhanced by any documents from Bangladesh.  

4.  Pursuant to Practice Direction 2.1, the 1^st applicant was directed to lodge submissions in support of his application. However, he did not comply with the direction.

5.  The relevant criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal are set out in Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance Cap 484:

“ An appeal shall lie to the Court [of Final Appeal] at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court [of Final Appeal], from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court [of Final Appeal], as the case may be, 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.”

6.  Having read the Notice of Motion and the affirmation of the 1^st applicant, we cannot find any basis for holding that leave to appeal should be granted pursuant to Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. The 1^st applicant has not raised any question of great general or public importance in the intended appeal.  Nor is there any reason for leave to be granted on the “otherwise” limb. We also see no basis for extending the time for him to bring this application.

7.  The Notice of Motion of 28 May 2018 is dismissed.