|
CACV 122/2022
[2022] HKCA 1303
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 122 OF 2022
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 431 of 2019)
____________________
____________________
Before: Hon G Lam JA and Barnes J in Court
Date of Judgment: 5 September 2022 (Hearing by way of paper disposal)
________________
JUDGMENT
________________
Hon Barnes J (giving the Judgment of the Court):
Introduction
1. By a judgment (Judgment) [1]handed down on 21 July 2022 we dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Hon Campbell-Moffat J (“Judge”) made on 14 March 2022[2] refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/adjudicator of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office (“Board”) dated 20 December 2018. The background and reasons for our decision were fully set out in the Judgment and we will not repeat them here.
2. The applicant, who is acting in person, filed a Notice of Motion dated 1 August 2022 for leave to appeal against our Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.
3. In the Notice of Motion, the applicant claimed that he still had the problem of his life being in danger due to the torture he suffered in the hands of the Shia Muslim group. He was scared to go back to his country and he requested for an oral hearing so that he could explain his position.
4. In his written submission, the applicant claimed that he was unable to submit supporting documents as he could not take them out of the country. He reiterated that he was tortured by the said group many times. He requested this Court to find a solution to protect his life. The applicant also stressed that he had started a new life in Hong Kong and that he had married a Hong Kong resident.
5. We have read the Notice of Motion and the written submission filed in support. As provided in paragraph 3 of the Practice Direction 2.1, such leave applications are dealt with and determined on paper without an oral hearing. We see no reason why this application cannot be disposed of on paper without a hearing and we refused the applicant’s request for an oral hearing.
6. It should be noted that a hearing was fixed on 21 July 2022 before us but the applicant failed to lodge his skeleton argument as directed by the Registrar of Civil Appeals and the hearing was vacated.
Discussion
7. In our Judgment we have already found that in the present case, the Board rejected the applicant’s claim for non-refoulement protection due to its adverse finding as to the applicant’s credibility.[3] The Board also found that there was no real risk of harm in the event of refoulement as internal location was viable. Such findings are within the province of the Board. The Court will not interfere with such assessments unless they are reversible on public law grounds.
8. 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.
9. The matters stated in the Notice of Motion and submission do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has not identified any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b).
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 are not met. Accordingly, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.
| (Godfrey Lam) |
(Judianna Barnes) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Judge of Court of First Instance |
The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.
[1] See [2022] HKCA 1049
[2] See [2022] HKCFI 680
[3] See paragraph 15 of Judgment
|