上訴至終審法院的許可準則？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：AHMED SYED RAFIQ - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：林文瀚副庭長、朱芬嶺上訴法官、鮑晏明上訴法官 - 判決日期：2018年6月4日 ### 案情摘要 申請人AHMED SYED RAFIQ早前因未能遵守於2017年12月19日發出的「除非命令」(unless order)，導致其上訴被駁回。上訴法庭已於2018年3月26日頒下判決，拒絕解除該駁回命令。申請人隨後於2018年4月3日提交動議通知書，申請上訴至終審法院。申請人聲稱缺乏資源和協助準備上訴，但法庭認為他能夠提交各種文件和書面陳詞，故不接納此說法。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於申請人是否有充分理據獲准上訴至終審法院。法庭需根據《香港終審法院條例》(Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance) 第22(1)(b)條所訂明的準則，評估擬議上訴是否涉及具重大普遍重要性或公眾重要性的問題，或是否有其他理由應提交終審法院裁決。 ### 判決理由 法庭根據《香港終審法院條例》第22(1)(b)條的準則，審視了申請人提出的上訴理據。法庭認為，申請人擬議的上訴不涉及任何具重大普遍重要性或公眾重要性的問題，亦沒有其他理由應提交終審法院裁決。法庭重申，其於2018年3月26日的判決已詳細評估了原上訴的案情，並認為該上訴「完全沒有理據」(wholly devoid of merit)。申請人於2018年4月26日提交的書面陳詞未能提出任何新論點以支持其申請。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 法庭駁回申請人於2018年4月3日提交的動議通知書，拒絕批准其上訴至終審法院的申請。法庭認為無需進行口頭聆訊，直接根據書面陳詞處理。 ### 判決啟示 null --- ### 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: AHMED SYED RAFIQ - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Lam VP, Chu JA, Barma JA - Date of Judgment: 4 June 2018 ### Factual Background The applicant, AHMED SYED RAFIQ, had his appeal dismissed earlier due to non-compliance with an unless order made on 19 December 2017. The Court of Appeal had handed down a judgment on 26 March 2018, refusing to grant relief from the dismissal. Subsequently, on 3 April 2018, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant claimed a lack of resources and assistance to prepare for the appeal, but the court did not accept this assertion, noting his ability to lodge various documents and written submissions. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue in this case was whether the applicant had sufficient grounds to be granted leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The court needed to assess whether the intended appeal involved a question of great general or public importance, or otherwise, that ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision, as stipulated by Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. ### Ratio Decidendi The court reviewed the applicant's grounds for appeal against the criteria set out in Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. The court found no basis to conclude that the intended appeal involved a question of great general or public importance, nor any other reason for leave to be granted. The court reiterated its assessment from the 26 March 2018 judgment that the original appeal was "wholly devoid of merit." The applicant's written submissions of 26 April 2018 did not advance his case further. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The court dismissed the applicant's Notice of Motion dated 3 April 2018, thereby refusing his application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The court determined that the application could be processed on the papers without an oral hearing. ### Key Takeaways null --- ### 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.