RE MEHMOOD QASIR

CAMP 273/2021

[2022] HKCA 67

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 273 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2388 OF 2018)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.  On 25 October 2021, this Court handed down our judgment[1] refusing to give leave to the applicant to appeal out of time against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Lung given on 2 June 2020 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.     

2.  On 14 December 2021, the applicant filed a notice of motion and an affirmation to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  He also lodged a written submission to support his application.

3.  Having considered the notice of motion, affirmation 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.  Section 24(2) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be filed within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from.  Under section 24(5), the Court of Appeal may extend the time for the filing of the notice of motion.

5.  The applicant’s application is late by about three weeks.  He stated in his affirmation that he did not get the judgment in time, but provided no details to support his assertion.        

6.  We turn next to consider the merits of the application.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

7.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, 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.

8.  Both in the notice of motion and the written submission, the applicant stated that he did not get justice and he wants to go to the Court of Final Appeal to get justice.  He also stated in the written submission that his life is under threat in Pakistan, and although he had tried his best to stay in the country, he had to leave because his enemy is wealthy, powerful and influential such that he had to run from one place to another and yet could not find a safe place.        

9.  We are of the view that the matters put forward by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  Importantly, they do not involve any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b).  Further, for the reasons we gave at [17] of our judgment, the intended appeal is unarguable.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, the application for leave to appeal is bound to fail.  In the circumstances, it is futile to extend the time for making the application.  Accordingly, we refuse to extend the time for applying for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss the notice of motion.