RE BILLAL PARAMANIK

CAMP 125/2018

[2021] HKCA 1783

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 125 OF 2018

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 650/2017)

____________________

____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 5 July 2018, DHCJ Woodcock dismissed the applicant’s application for leave for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing his appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting his non refoulement claim.

2.  On 26 July 2018, the applicant took out a summons seeking extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ Woodcock dated 5 July 2018.  He did so without first applying for leave in the Court of First Instance.

3.  On 18 September 2018, Barma JA dismissed the summons dated 26 July 2018 on the ground that the applicant failed to comply with the direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 27 July 2018.  Paragraph 3 of the direction stated that “[the] application…is hereby stayed pending the Applicant’s application to the Court of First Instance for extension of time…failing which the [summons dated 26 July 2018] will be referred [to] the Court of Appeal for dismissal without further notice”.

4.  On 25 July 2019, the applicant took out a summons to “apply for relief under the unless court order dated 18-9-2018”.

5.  On 30 July 2019, Barma JA dismissed the summons dated 25 July 2019 on the ground that the application was misconceived because no unless order had in fact been imposed on 18 September 2018.

6.  On 22 April 2021, some two and a half years later, the applicant filed a summons dated 21 April 2021 applying for “an extension of time for compliance with the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeal and leave to advance a new sole ground of appeal.

7.  On 28 April 2021, Barma JA dismissed the summons dated 21 April 2021 on the ground that the application for extension of time by summons dated 26 July 2018 had already been dismissed on 18 September 2018 and the summons filed on 22 April 2021 was therefore misconceived.

8.  On 6 May 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion dated 5 May 2021 apparently for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the “judgment of the Court of Appeal” given on 28 April 2021.

9.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicant stated that the “learned judges” were wrong for not having applied the principles of irrationality and procedural unfairness to the decision made by the Director.  He further stated that “the judge” did not apply the law properly.

10.  On 7 May 2021, the Registrar of Civil Appeals directed, among other things, that the applicant should lodge written submission on or before 21 May 2021 to clarify his grounds of complaint, because there was no judgment handed down by the Court of Appeal.  The applicant failed to do so.

11.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, 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.

12.  The matters stated 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. 

13.  The applicant failed to engage the reasons for dismissing the summons dated 21 April 2021 given by Barma JA on 28 April 2021, namely that the application for extension of time had already been dismissed on 26 July 2018.  As is clear from the procedural history recited above, the order dated 26 July 2018 was not an unless order and there was no room for the applicant to seek to reopen the matter, whether by an application for relief for sanction, an application to extend time, or otherwise.  The application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal is in our view hopeless.

14.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

15.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 5 May 2021 is dismissed.