|
CAMP 420/2021
[2022] HKCA 976
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 420 OF 2021
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 994 OF 2018)
________________________
| RE: |
KASHIF BUTT |
Applicant |
________________________
Before: Hon Yuen JA and Barma JA in Court
Date of Judgment: 12 July 2022
________________________
J U D G M E N T
________________________
Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 25 February 2022, this court (Yuen JA and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ CP Pang dated 22 October 2020 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board, which dismissed his appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration.
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 12 April 2022, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, in which he contended that this court “were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of procedural unfairness / irrationality”.
4. In the supporting affirmation, the applicant deposed that due to the pandemic, legal visits were temporarily suspended by the Immigration Department.
5. In breach of Practice Direction 2.1, the applicant failed to lodge any 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 claimed that he filed the Notice of Motion out of time by reason of the delayed access to legal representation due to the pandemic. As the applicant is acting in person in the present application (and had acted in person in the appeal and in the proceedings below), we do not regard this as a reasonable excuse or reason for the present delay in his application for leave.
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. As to the applicant’s allegation that we “were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of procedural unfairness / irrationality”, no particulars or basis were provided for this complaint.
10. None of the matters stated in the Notice of Motion are 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).
11. For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 12 April 2022 is dismissed.
| (Maria Yuen) |
(Aarif Barma) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant acting in person
|