RE AKTER

CAMP 234/2020

[2021] HKCA 1246

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 234 OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1721 of 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

1.  On 23 July 2021, this Court (Yeung VP and Chu JA) handed down our judgment[1] refusing to extend the time for the applicant to appeal the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung given on 18 June 2020 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.     

2.  On 4 August 2021, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant had also put in a written submission on 16 August 2021 to support his application.

3.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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.

6.  The notice of motion set out the following grounds in support of the application:

(1)  All the valuable supporting documents submitted by the applicant were disregarded.  Many incidents had happened to the applicant, and he had been hospitalised.  The medical report had been submitted.

(2)  The applicant still has problems with his enemies in his country.  His life would be in danger if he returns to his country.

(3)  The applicant will submit more documents. He will do his best to obtain all the documents, and he asked for time to do this.

(4)  The applicant, as an asylum seeker, cannot afford legal representation.  He is seeking justice and protection. 

7.  The written submission made the following points:

(1)  The applicant came to Hong Kong to seek protection from his enemies.  He applied to the High Court for justice.  He had given many documents regarding his case, but they and also his verbal statements were all disregarded.  In fact, he and his family still have problems in his home country.

(2)  The applicant’s enemies are still powerful and connected with the ruling party, the police and also gangsters.  They are dangerous people who can harm him if he returns to his country.  The police will not take action on any report that he makes about them.  

8.  Ten pages of documents were attached to the written submission.  They are: (i) a shop rental agreement and boundary report and their English translation; (ii) police report and its translation; and (iii) medical reports from Dhaka Medical College Hospital.  Documents (i) and (ii) were already exhibited in the applicant’s affirmation filed in the Court of First Instance in support of the Form 86, and also attached to the written submission in support of the application made to this Court for extension of time to appeal.  As for document (iii), it was exhibited in the applicant’s affirmation filed in the Court of First Instance in support of the application for extension of time to appeal.    

9.  We are of the view that the matters put forward in the notice of motion and the written submission do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal.  Importantly, they all relate to the circumstances of the applicant and his claim, and do not involve any question of great general or public importance that ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination.  The requirement for granting leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance is therefore not met.  

10.  Further, there are no merits in the matters raised by the applicant.  In particular, for the reasons we gave at [21] of our judgment, the applicant’s complaint that his documents were disregarded is incorrect.       

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

12.  As the statutory requirements for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal are not met, we refuse the application and dismiss the notice of motion.

[1] [2021] HKCA 1034.