BILAL v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD AND ANOTHER

CACV 344/2022

[2023] HKCA 619

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 344 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 113 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Fung J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Background

1.  This is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the judgment of the Court of Appeal handed down on 13 January 2023 ([2023] HKCA 24).  The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 5 August 2022 refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review against the decisions of the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board concerning his non-refoulement claim.

2.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, the Registrar of Civil Appeals had directed that the notice of motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing.  The applicant lodged written submissions on 9 February 2023. Having considered the written submissions and the papers, it is considered appropriate to determine this application on paper.

Grounds of Appeal

3.  The applicant put forward the following grounds of appeal in his Notice of Motion filed on 27 January 2023:

(1)  There are some errors of law in the decision;

(2)  The authorities totally relied on web information or sources of news which are not officially recognized;

(3)  His case has not been determined fairly.

4.  In his written submissions, he further contended that:

(1)  Whilst it may be true that interpretation service does not need to be made available at all times to a non-refoulement claimant, it does not mean that the basic right of a litigant to understand contents of the process or judgment can or should be deprived of;

(2)  In the applicant’s case, no assistance has been given to him regarding his claim under BOR 2 risk;

(3)  The lack of sound judgment and fairness throughout the non-refoulement claim process is appalling and should not be tolerated.  The Court of Appeal should investigate, point out and correct such misbehaviour of the decision makers; and

(4)  The discriminatory act of the authorities towards non-refoulement claimants to quickly dispose of non-refoulement cases is unacceptable and is detrimental to the spirit of the judicial system.

Analysis

5.  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 at the discretion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final Appeal, from any judgment of the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter, whether final or interlocutory, if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal or the Court of Final 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.

6.  The Court of Appeal has already considered the applicant’s grounds of appeal and given detailed reasons for refusing the appeal in its judgment dated 13 January 2023.  The applicant does not have any reasonably arguable ground to show that the Court of Appeal was wrong in its judgment.  He also failed to identify any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for determination in accordance with section 22(1)(b).  There is also no basis for granting leave on the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

7.  For the above reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 27 January 2023 should be dismissed.