RE CHARN KAMAL SINGH

CAMP 257/2020 &
CACV 561/2020

[2022] HKCA 641

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 257 OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 182 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

AND

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 561/2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 182 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 25 August 2021, this court (Poon CJHC and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ Bruno Chan given on 3 June 2020 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review and striking out the applicant’s Notice of Appeal in CACV 561/2020. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board, which dismissed his appeal against the decisions of the Director of Immigration in respect of his non-refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the application, 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 Notices of Motion filed on 8 September 2021 in respect of CAMP 257/2020 and CACV 561/2020, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notices of Motion that:

“The director of Immigration and the Adjudicator of Torture Claims Appeal Board rejected my claim. The High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed my leave to apply for judicial review. But I have no way to return home. I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.”

4.  In his written submissions lodged on 23 September 2021, the applicant repeated the dangers he may face if he returned to India.  He further alleged that the decisions of the Court of First Instance and the Court of Appeal were “full of error”, without providing any particulars.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notices 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 matters advanced 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.

7.  None of the matters stated in the Notices of Motion are reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.  For these reasons, the Notices of Motion filed on 8 September 2021 in respect of CAMP 257/2020 and CACV 561/2020 are dismissed.