RE ANTHONY OWUSU

CACV 415/2022, [2024] HKCA 954

On appeal from [2022] HKCFI 3141

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 415 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 2496 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 22 February 2023, this court (Barma JA and ST Poon J)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung given on 11 October 2022 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the applicant’s 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 filed out of time on 3 April 2023, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant merely stated that he wanted to “challenge the decision”.

4.  In breach of the directions by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant lodged his written submissions late, by 2 days.  Given the short delay, we have on this occasion considered those submissions, in which the applicant simply repeated the factual and procedural background to his claim, and stated that he wanted to “get justice”.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, 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 documents filed.

6.  The Notice of Motion was filed out of time and there was no explanation on the part of the applicant for the delay therein, nor in his affidavit filed on the same date.  The delay of around 2 weeks is not insignificant, and the Notice of Motion could be dismissed on this basis alone.  However, on this occasion, we have decided to focus instead on the merits of the application.

7.  In any event, the matters stated by the applicant 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.

8.  Neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submissions identify any supposed error in our judgment and they raise no ground that is reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

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

10.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 3 April 2023 is dismissed.