RE TUFAIL USMAN

CAMP 50/2019

[2019] HKCA 1253

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 50 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 326 OF 2018)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  By a judgment dated 15 August 2019 ([2019] HKCA 864), the Court of Appeal refused to grant an extension of time for the applicant to appeal against the decision of Campbell-Moffat J (“the Judge”) dated 26 September 2018 in HCAL 326/2018 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 28 February 2018.

2.  By a notice of motion dated 4 September 2019, the applicant seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on the grounds that:

“I would like to reject the decision of the Court of Appeal dismissing my summons on 15 August 2019. First, I was delayed because I entrusted a lawyer to process my case as I cannot do it on my own. He failed to deliver my application on time and I do not understand how the process works. Second, I believe that as a claimant, I have rights to lodge my appeal under the judicial system and I should be granted a fair chance to lodge my case.”

3.  Pursuant to the directions made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 5 September 2019, the applicant lodged his written submissions on 18 September 2019.  In his written submissions, he advanced the following grounds of appeal:

(1)    Pakistan is fraught with human rights issues.  The Pakistani police and system are corrupt, ineffective and cannot protect its people from violence and abuses.

(2)    The Board just relied on COI without understanding the cultural context of Pakistan.  The Pakistani security forces do not account for their people and there are human rights violations and extrajudicial killings throughout the country.

(3)    The applicant had provided strong proof that his opponent was strong and powerful and he would be in grave danger if refouled.

(4)    The applicant should be excused for not understanding the legal procedures and how to proceed with his claim.

(5)    The applicant got letter from a law firm in Lahore and a letter to prove he had once worked as a reporter.  He would not leave his country unless he was under great threat.

4.  The Registrar further directed that unless the court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  As it is appropriate to do so, this application is processed on paper without an oral hearing.

5.  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.  Here, the Board rejected the applicant’s claim by finding no credence on the applicant’s evidence about his alleged private dispute with his enemy over a land transaction.  As stated in [17] of our judgment, we are satisfied that the Board had carefully reviewed the applicant’s case and had provided a reasonable opportunity for him to state his case.  We agreed with the Judge that there was no errors of law or procedure or irrationality in the Board’s decision and the applicant’s intended appeal is bound to fail.  None of the grounds set out in the written submissions can constitute valid grounds of appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

6.  For the reasons that we gave in our judgment, we do not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s decision and order.  None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion and his written submissions involves an arguable point or a question of great general or public importance.  We do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b) either.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is not met.

7.  Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss his notice of motion.