RE ABBAS SAFEER

CACV 169/2018

[2018] HKCA 939

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 169 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 705/2017)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 21 September 2018, this court (Yuen and Barma JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Chung J (“the judge”) on 8 May 2018 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the 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 dated 8 October 2018, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his notice of motion that:

(1)  there had been no hearing since the applicant initiated proceedings in the High Court and this had been unfair to him;

(2)  he did not understand English.  The applicant was not aware of the need to request an oral hearing before the judge.  He was also not aware of the need to lodge skeleton submissions for his appeal; and

(3)  the applicant should have been given the benefit of the doubt.

4.  In compliance with the directions of the court, the applicant lodged a written submission in support of his application dated 22 October 2018 but received on 24 October 2018.  In the submission, the applicant elaborated on the grounds in the notice of motion.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission, 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 his notice of motion and written submission.

6.  The matters stated by the applicant in his notice of motion do not constitute grounds for granting leave 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 in accordance with 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 in his notice of motion and his written submission.  So far as the applicant’s failure to request an oral hearing at first instance is concerned, ignorance of the law on the part of the applicant is not a good excuse.  As for his failure to lodge skeleton submissions for the appeal, no reason was put forward as to why the directions, which were sent to the address provided by him for correspondence, might not have been received.  Further, the applicant was unable to point to any real prejudice from the lack of oral hearings.  In our view, the matters raised in the notice of motion are plainly not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

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

8.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 8 October 2018 is dismissed.