RE NJOKU DESMOND OZOEMENA

CAMP 236/2019

[2021] HKCA 1043

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 236 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 298/2018)

___________________

___________________

___________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

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

1.  On 26 May 2021, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) against this Court’s judgment of 13 May 2021. In that judgment we dismissed the Applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan on 17 June 2019 dismissing his application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the CFA at the discretion of this Court or the CFA 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 CFA for decision.

3.  In the Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the CFA, the Applicant raised the following matters in support of his application:

“ I would like to inform Court of Final Appeal. There is some error in law in my decision maker just relied on COL information and my previous facts which were favor on reject my claim. Actual life occur different situation then mentioned COL information. Officer and court prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence toward a bias and formula approach unlikely fairly access the danger of my life and clearly calcute to reject my claim.” [sic]

4.  In his submissions of 9 June 2021, the Applicant argued that the determination of his claim by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) was procedurally unfair because he was never provided with proper legal and language assistance.  He argued that the Board’s decision was never read back to him in his language, and as such, he did not thoroughly know how his claim was determined and thus it was not easy for him to appeal.

5.  The Applicant also submitted that there was procedural unfairness arising from public policy in the disposal of non-refoulement claims as quickly as possible.  He also said such policy is discriminatory.

6.  The arguments in the Applicant’s submissions had not been raised before and should not be entertained for the first time at the stage of application for leave to appeal to the CFA.

7.  In any event, the arguments regarding lack of legal or language assistance are untenable.  The high standard of fairness required by law would not entail free legal representation at all stages of the proceedings nor an interpretation service being made available at any time: see Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14; Re Lopchan Subash [2018] HKCA 37; Re Gurnishan Singh [2018] HKCA 704; Re Gurung Sagar [2019] HKCA 658; and Din Shamas v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2019] HKCA 1403.

8.  The Applicant’s other arguments are bare assertions without merit.  He had been in Hong Kong since 2012 and his non-refoulement claim was made in 2015.  The time limit for bringing an appeal against the refusal to apply for judicial review is prescribed by Order 53 Rule 3(4) of the Rules of the High Court, Cap 4A which applies to all litigants. There is no basis for any allegation of discrimination to be made.

9.  The Applicant’s submissions fail to engage with the reasons given in the judgment of 13 May 2021 for dismissing his appeal and do not raise any discernible or arguable ground for disturbing this Court’s judgment.

10.  There is no question of great general or public importance or which otherwise ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination.

11.  For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA, and dismiss the Applicant’s Notice of Motion accordingly.