|
CAMP 42/2021
[2022] HKCA 1793
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 42 OF 2021
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 201 OF 2017)
____________________
| RE: |
BITTU SINGH |
Applicant |
____________________
Before: Hon Chu VP and Barma JA in Court
Date of Judgment: 12 December 2022
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 1 December 2021, this court (Chu JA (as she then was) and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s intended appeal from the judgment of DHCJ Bruno Chan dated 20 March 2018 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non-refoulement claim.
2. The facts and issues in the application, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1] We will not repeat them here.
3. The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed out of time on 13 April 2022, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated that he disagreed with the judgment of this Court, contending that the judgment was “not fair”, as well as reiterating the alleged dangers he would face should he be refouled.
4. In the affirmation filed on 13 April 2022, the applicant deposed:
“… Notice of Motion is out of time … I did not get any letter from the court about the Judgment … the Immigration officer informed me and I intend to apply for Notice of Motion because I have severe problem in my home country.”
5. In breach of the directions by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant failed to lodge any written submissions with the court. He is thus deemed to have abandoned his right to rely on written submissions.
6. Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and affirmation, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers. We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.
7. The applicant failed to state the date on which he was informed by the Immigration Officer of the judgment of this court. We are therefore of the view that the applicant has failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.
8. In any event, the matters advanced by the applicant do not constitute grounds 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 for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484. Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised.
9. None of the matters stated in the Notice of Motion are therefore in our view reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
10. For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 13 April 2022 is dismissed.
(Carlye Chu)
Vice-President |
(Aarif Barma)
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant acting in person
|