RE DILIP KUMAR RAI

CAMP 66/2021

[2022] HKCA 580

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 66 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 2836 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 14 September 2021, this court (Chu JA and Barma JA)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ K W Lung given on 30 July 2020 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board, which dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration.

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 a Notice of Motion filed on 23 September 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant contended inter alia that:

(1)  he was not provided with “language assistance” in the “Court process”;

(2)  the “lack of assistance” provided to him amounted to an error of law or procedure;

(3)  he did not have legal representation, which undermined his ability to identify errors in the judge’s decision.

4.  In his written submissions lodged on 7 October 2021, the applicant, while repeating the matters stated in the Notice of Motion, also admitted (at [9])  that “interpretation services were available at hearing at every stage”.

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 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.  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. 

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

9.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 23 September 2021 is dismissed.