LAL MIAH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 440/2019

[2020] HKCA 654

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 440 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1926 OF 2018)

_____________________

BETWEEN

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Yuen JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  This court (Hon Yuen JA and Lisa Wong J) handed down judgment on 28 May 2020 ([2020] HKCA 364) dismissing the applicant’s appeal from an order of DHCJ K.W. Lung given on 16 September 2019 refusing his application for leave to apply for judicial review concerning his non-refoulement claim. The facts and issues in the appeal before the Court of Appeal, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.

2.  The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion on 17 June 2020, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

3.  On 18 June 2020, the Registrar of Civil Appeals directed that the applicant shall lodge his written submissions on or before 2 July 2020, and the Notice of Motion shall be determined on paper only without an oral hearing.  The applicant did not file written submissions. We agree it is appropriate to determine this application on paper.   

4.  The applicant only stated the following in his Notice of Motion:

“The Honourable Judges of the Court of Appeal refused my apply for judicial review for leave, but they failed to show any cause. So I did not get fair judgment. I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.” (sic)

5.  These are not proper grounds of appeal. He has not addressed the reasons in this court’s judgment at all.   

6.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal if the question involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal. 

7.  No question of great general or public importance has been identified in the Notice of Motion.

8.  Nor do we see any basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b). 

9.  By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion dated 17 June 2020 is dismissed.