MAQSOOD PAUL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CAMP 348/2021

[2022] HKCA 1068

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 348 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1504 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  On 4 May 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 4 June 2020 refusing to grant him leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 27 April 2018.

2.  The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 16 May 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant repeats his complaint regarding the lack of language assistance. He also makes some general complaints about error or law, procedural unfairness, and failure to adhere to a high standard of fairness.

3.  Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of the Court of Final Appeal or the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Final Appeal or the Court of Appeal, as the case may be, 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.

4.  No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal. In relation to the complaint about the lack of language assistance, it was dealt with in paragraph 17 of the CA Judgment. The Notice of Motion itself is written in English of a reasonable standard, which plainly indicates that the Applicant has received reasonable language assistance. The other general complaints raised by the Applicant without particulars cannot give rise to any question of great general or public importance. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success. There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

5.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

6.  Finally, if the Applicant wishes to have this judgment interpreted to him, he can make an application to the court to arrange for such interpretation to be given by a court interpreter at a mutually convenient time.