上訴至終審法院的延誤申請及理據？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：RE ALI HAIDER - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：朱芬齡副庭長、張澤祐上訴法官、鮑馬漢上訴法官 - 判決日期：2024年8月15日 ### 案情摘要 申請人Ali Haider於2018年4月24日向上訴法庭提出上訴，反對高等法院原訟法庭副法官Woodcock於2017年12月22日拒絕其司法覆核許可申請的決定，但該上訴被駁回。時隔六年多，申請人於2024年7月4日再次提交動議通知書及誓章，申請許可上訴至終審法院，並附上一份題為「反對司法覆核動議通知書理由」的六頁文件作為書面陳詞。申請人聲稱因被拘留、不識字及不了解法庭程序而延誤提交申請。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議為：申請人是否已就其申請上訴至終審法院提供充分理由，以解釋其長達六年多的嚴重延誤？其次，申請人提出的上訴理由是否具備「具有重大普遍性或公眾重要性」的法律問題，或具備其他理由，使其應獲准上訴至終審法院？ ### 判決理由 法庭分析指，申請人未能就其長達六年多的嚴重延誤提供滿意解釋或充分理由。關於上訴理據，法庭認為申請人提出的所有事項均與其個人申索有關，不涉及《香港終審法院條例》(Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484) 第22(1)(b)條所要求的「具有重大普遍性或公眾重要性」的法律問題。法庭亦指出申請人關於程序不公的投訴，包括沒有法律和語言協助，是站不住腳的，且其聲稱回巴基斯坦會受傷害或被殺害的說法缺乏證據基礎。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回申請人就其申請上訴至終審法院的動議通知書。法庭認為申請人未能提供充分理由解釋其嚴重延誤，且其擬議上訴缺乏理據，因此拒絕延長提交動議通知書的時限。 ### 判決啟示 本案重申了申請上訴至終審法院時，必須嚴格遵守法定时限，並需提供充分理由解釋任何延誤。此外，上訴理由必須涉及具有重大普遍性或公眾重要性的法律問題，而非僅限於申請人個人申索的事實爭議。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: RE ALI HAIDER - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Chu VP, Cheung and Barma JJA - Date of Judgment: 15 August 2024 ### Factual Background The applicant, Ali Haider, had his appeal against the refusal of leave for judicial review dismissed by the Court of Appeal on 24 April 2018. More than six years later, on 4 July 2024, the applicant filed a notice of motion and affirmation seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. He submitted a six-page document titled "Grounds of Notice of Motion against Judicial Review" as his written submission. The applicant claimed that his delay in filing was due to various detentions, illiteracy, and lack of knowledge about court processes. ### Key Legal Issues The main legal issues were: whether the applicant provided a satisfactory explanation for his serious delay of over six years in applying for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. Secondly, whether the grounds for his intended appeal involved a question of "great general or public importance" or otherwise merited submission to the Court of Final Appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation or good reason for his lengthy and serious delay of over six years. Regarding the merits of the appeal, the Court held that all matters raised by the applicant related to his personal claim and did not involve any question of great general or public importance as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484). The Court also noted that the applicant's complaints of procedural unfairness, including lack of legal and language assistance, were unarguable, and his assertion of harm or death upon returning to Pakistan lacked evidential basis. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's notice of motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The Court found no basis to extend the time for filing the notice of motion due to the absence of good cause for the serious delay and the lack of merits of the intended appeal. ### Key Takeaways This case reaffirms the strict adherence to statutory time limits for appealing to the Court of Final Appeal and the necessity of providing compelling reasons for any delay. Furthermore, grounds for appeal must involve legal questions of great general or public importance, not merely factual disputes related to the applicant's personal claim. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.