RE IFTEKHAR ZAMADER

CACV 317/2018

[2019] HKCA 36

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 317 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 911 of 2017)

________________________

________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

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

1.  On 21 November 2018, this Court handed down our judgment[1] (“the Judgment”) striking out the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the Judge”) given on 13 July 2018 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.  

2.  By a Notice of Motion dated 3 December 2018, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. 

3.  Pursuant to the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant has lodged a written submission on 17 December 2018 to support his application.

4.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, 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 his notice of motion.

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 applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that, if refouled to Bangladesh, he would be harmed or killed by the people of the Awami League or the police in connection with a false murder charge, and also by the family members of the murdered victim.  The applicant also said that election would be held in one or two months’ time and if he were sent back now, the Awami League supporters would kill him.  He asked for protection under the Basic Law and for permission to stay in Hong Kong until it was safe to return to his country.

7.  In his written submission, the applicant gave an account of his claim and reiterated his fear of being harmed or killed by the Awami League supporters, the police and the family members of the victim of the murder case.

8.  What was stated in the Notice of Motion and the written submission does not constitute ground 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, as required by section 22(1)(b). 

9.  Further, none of the matters advanced by the applicant is arguable.  We have in [10] to [15] of our judgment pointed out that the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review was bound to fail, being seriously out of time and was an abuse of the court process, and that the appeal to this court was not properly constituted in that no leave to appeal had been obtained from the Judge.

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

11.  For the above reasons, the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal is not met.  Accordingly, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.