RE BUTA SINGH

CAMP 210/2021

[2022] HKCA 126

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 210 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2547 OF 2019)

____________________

____________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  On 6 December 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s (Au and Chow JJA) judgment of 2 December 2021 (“the Judgment”) ([2021] HKCA 1808). In the Judgment, we dismissed the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 11 June 2020 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review ([2020] HKCFI 1091).

2.  The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as this Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the Judgment.  We will not repeat them here.  After reviewing the Notice of Motion, we see no reason to deviate from the usual practice to consider this application on paper pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1.

3.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 (“the HKCFAO”) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of this Court or the Court of Final Appeal 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.

4.  In both his Notice of Motion and his supporting affirmation filed on the same date, the applicant stated:

“Respected Sir/Madam, I am late for apply due to lock of knowledg and insufficient sources. Please accept my filling application so that I can process my case further. I hope I will get your favour.” (sic)

5.  The applicant lodged his written submissions on 14 December 2021.  In his written submissions, he stated that he was not satisfied with the Board’s Decision as it ignored many things.  He claimed that his life would become worse if he were to return to his country.  He also claimed that the police and other legislative authorities were using their political influence and he did not have much strength to fight against them, and that anyone who wanted to become a witness against these authorities may disappear or be killed by unknown persons.  He further alleged that it was difficult to get justice in that corrupt environment and that people like him were living under threat due to enemies who were strong in all ways.  None of his submissions identified any error in the Judgment.

6.  In our view, the applicant’s application is wholly devoid of merits. None of the matters raised in his Notice of Motion, supporting affirmation or written submissions has identified any specific error in the Judgment.  General assertions of his fear to return to his home country simply do not constitute viable grounds of appeal.  The matters raised in his Notice of Motion and written submissions are all general, bare and vague allegations unsupported by specific particulars or evidence.  Clearly, they do not constitute proper grounds of appeal.

7.  Furthermore, the written submissions lodged by the applicant on 14 December 2021 were essentially the same as those written submissions previously lodged by the applicant on 14 July 2021.  Those submissions had already been considered and rejected by this Court at [18] of the Judgment and the applicant failed to identify any error in the Judgment.

8.  Accordingly, the applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

9.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 6 December 2021 is dismissed.