|
CACV 538/2019
[2020] HKCA 570
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 538 OF 2019
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2806 OF 2018)
____________
| Re: |
WAKEEL AMJAD |
Applicant |
____________
Before: Hon Yeung VP, Chu and Pang JJA in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 22 June 2020
Date of Judgment: 4 August 2020
________________
J U D G M E N T
________________
Hon Pang JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :
1. By a judgment dated 3 June 2020 ([2020] HKCA 419), this Court (Yeung VP, Chu and Pang JJA) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K.W. Lung (“the Judge”) given on 18 November 2019 in HCAL 2806/2018 refusing to grant leave to him to apply for judicial review. The applicant sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) given on 28 November 2018 dismissing his petition/appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration (“Director”) given on 2 March 2018 rejecting his non-refoulement claim.
2. By a notice of motion dated 9 June 2020, the applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the grounds that :
“I would like to inform Court of Appeal there is some error in law in my decision maker just relied on COL information and my previous facts which were favour on reject my claim actual life occur different situation then mentioned COL information, officer and court prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence toward a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the dangers of my life and clearly calculate to reject my claim.”
3. In compliance with the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 10 June 2020, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 22 June 2020 in which he advanced the following grounds :
(1) The Judge did not hear his case in person.
(2) There was a lack of legal representation for his claim on BOR 2 risk[1] before the Director.
(3) The Director’s decision on BOR 2 risk was made without ensuring that he was aware of his rights regarding his said claim. Owing to the lack of language assistance and legal representation, he did not understand the process and the reason for the rejection of his claim. Further, the Board’s decision was not interpreted to him.
(4) The court and the authorities have been negligent and failed to perform a standard duty of care for non-refoulement claimants like him. He believed that he was not the only one who did not understand English and the court procedures. As such, he was put in a discriminated and disadvantaged position.
(5) The discriminating act of the authorities in quick disposal of the non-refoulement cases is unacceptable and detrimental to the spirit of the judicial system. The applicant was not treated equally and his incapability was not taken into account.
(6) All acts of the authorities were highly discriminatory and unfair to him.
4. The Registrar had directed that unless the court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on the papers only without an oral hearing. The applicant stated in his written submissions that he would request for an oral hearing for his present application. Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determination of this kind of application on the papers. This we do now.
5. Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) provides that 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. Grounds 1 to 4, being complaints for the lack of oral hearing before the Judge as well as the lack of legal and language assistance before the Director and the Board, were mere regurgitation of the arguments advanced before us in his appeal. They were fully canvassed and duly rejected by us, see [10] to [12] of our judgment.
7. Grounds 5 and 6 are vague and general assertions without elaborations and none of the matters is directed to the Judge’s decision or our judgment. Therefore, they are not viable grounds of appeal.
8. For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 3 June 2020, we do not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s decision and order. None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion and his written submissions involves an arguable point or a question of great general or public importance. We do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) either. The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is not met.
9. Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his notice of motion.
(Wally Yeung)
Vice President |
(Carlye Chu)
Justice of Appeal |
(Derek Pang)
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person.
[1] This refers to the risk of violation of the right of life under Article 2 of Section 8 of the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap 383).
|