RE MOHAMMED IRSHAD

CACV 210/2020

[2021] HKCA 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 210 OF 2020

(ON AN APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1713 of 2018)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Chu JA giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.  On 12 November 2020, this Court handed down our judgment[1] dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Lung given on 17 June 2020 refusing him leave to apply for judicial review.     

2.  On 18 November 2020, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  Despite directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, he has not put in any written submission to support his application.

3.  Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.  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 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 Court of Final Appeal for decision.

5.  The notice of motion stated the following in support of the application:

“We are setting out motion to appeal on the grounds that lower court judges fails [sic] to consider the risk of life factor and assessment is too rush to see my actual grounds of risk to life under the BOR1/2 if I return back to India.”

6.  What was stated in the notice of motion do not constitute proper grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  Importantly, they do not involve any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b).  Further, as pointed out in [13] of our judgment, the applicant did not identify any error in the Judge’s decision and reasons, and his assertion that his life would be in risk cannot stand in light of the Board’s finding that he fabricated his claim.      

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

8.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we dismiss the notice of motion.