RE MUHAMMAD NADEEM KASHIF

CAMP 372/2022, [2023] HKCA 1162

On an intended appeal from [2022] HKCFI 407

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 372 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1295 OF 2019)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 21 July 2023, this court handed down a judgment ([2023] HKCA 881) dismissing the applicant’s renewed application for extension of time to appeal the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 8 February 2022 dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 31 July 2023, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. Despite directions given by the court, he has not put in any written submission to support his application.

3.  Having considered the 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 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.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484, 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.

6.  The Notice of Motion did not provide any ground in support of the intended appeal. It only stated that the applicant did not agree with the decisions of the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board, but the courts did not give him justice.

7.  Evidently the Notice of Motion has not identified any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance. Nor do we see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.