LOPEZ RONALD GUINTO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITION OFFICE

CACV 549/2019

[2021] HKCA 285

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 549 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1681 of 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon S T Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 1 June 2020, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s judgment of 25 May 2020. In that judgment the Court (Lam VP and S T Poon J) dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock on 28 November 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 Court of Final Appeal (“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 his Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the CFA, the Applicant stated that the Director of Immigration (“Director”) fell into procedural error in its assessment of the Applicant’s claim, because the Director had not exhausted its resources to understand the Applicant’s problem in the local context.

4.  Pursuant to the Court’s directions of 4 June 2020, the Applicant lodged his written submissions in support on 15 June 2020. He submitted that the court failed to see that the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) and the Director fell into procedural error, because the Board judged the case arbitrarily and the investigation did not take into account the cultural context in the Philippines.

5.  In addition, the Applicant reiterated his submissions made on the substantive appeal before this Court as regards the human rights situation in the Philippines and as regards the Board misinterpreting the situation so as to find testimony unreliable and untrustworthy.

6.  Further, apparently in answer to paragraph 17 of this Court’s judgment of 25 May 2020, the Applicant submitted that Form 86 does not facilitate one to fill in detail the reason for seeking judicial review.  He also submitted that due to lack of funds to retain professional assistance, it is almost impossible for him to navigate the legal system and that the service provided by the Duty Lawyer Service is extremely limited.

7.  The Applicant’s argument regarding lack of legal assistance is untenable.  As this Court (differently constituted) has repeatedly held, the high standard of fairness required by law would not entail free legal representation at all stages of the proceedings: see Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14; Re Lopchan Subash [2018] HKCA 37; Re Gurnishan Singh [2018] HKCA 704; and Din Shamas v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2019] HKCA 1403.

8.  The Applicant’s submissions fail to engage with the reasons given in this Court’s judgment of 25 May 2020 for dismissing his substantive appeal, and do not raise any discernible or arguable ground for disturbing our judgment.  The matters raised in his Notice of Motion and his written submissions fail to pinpoint any specific error in our judgment or the judgment of the court below. 

9.  In any event, in the circumstances, we do not consider that there is any question of great general or public importance or which otherwise ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination.

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