RE HUSSAIN KHALID

CACV 131/2023, [2024] HKCA 686

On Appeal From [2023] HKCFI 551

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 131 OF 2023

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 955 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

____________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

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

I.  Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.  On 21 July 2023, this Court (Cheung JA and Anthony Chan J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 19 April 2023 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.  The facts and issues of the appeal as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it are set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

3.  The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 31 July 2023, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his notice of motion in summary the following points :

1)  The applicant did not know that his failure to lodge skeleton submission would result in not having an oral hearing.

2)  The Judges were procedurally unfair.  The applicant did not get help on translation from friends.

3)  The applicant did not have legal assistance.

4)  The applicant believes internal relocation is not possible as the army were killing people like enemies.

4.  The applicant stated in his written submissions in summary the following points :

1)  He referred to authorities often cited in torture claim applications;

2)  His life and limb will be in jeopardy on refoulement and high standard of fairness must be observed;

3)  He should be given every reasonable opportunity to establish his claim;

4)  The Adjudicator did not properly assess his credibility; and

5)  Internal relocation within Pakistan is not possible as the army are putting people in jail without reason, and had killed and tortured supporters of PTI.

II.  Our view

5.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘Ordinance’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

6.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters he has raised in his notice of motion and written submissions. 

7.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.

III.  Disposition

8.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 31 July 2023 is dismissed.