RE ZAHID MUHAMMAD

CACV 244/2022

[2022] HKCA 1573

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 244 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2559 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 3 August 2022, this Court handed down our judgment ([2022] HKCA 1129)  dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”)  given on 7 June 2022 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review.  

2.  On 26 September 2022, the applicant filed a notice of motion together with an affirmation to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  He has 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 Hong Kong 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.  Section 24(5)  of the Ordinance further provides that the Court of Appeal may extend the time for the filing of the notice of motion.  In considering whether to extend the time, we will have regard to (i)  the length of the delay; (ii)  the reasons for the delay; (iii)  the merits of the intended application; and (iv)  the prejudice to the other parties if time was extended.  

5.  The applicant’s notice of motion is late by more than three weeks, which is not an insignificant delay. The applicant has given no explanation for the delay.

6.  As to the merits of the intended application, section 22(1)(b)  of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance provides that 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.

7.  The applicant has provided no grounds to support his application.  In the notice of motion, the affirmation and the written submission, the applicant only stated that he wanted to go to the Court of Final, for he was not satisfied with the decisions of the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board, but the Court refused to give him leave to apply for judicial review and the Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal.  He also stated in the written submission that there were many mistakes in the processing of his case, but he gave no elaboration of the alleged mistakes.    

8.  The applicant has not put forward any grounds in support of his application, it has not been shown that the intended appeal involves a question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b).  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, it would be futile to extend the time for the application.  Accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion.