向上訴法庭申請上訴許可的條件？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：RE : KARAMJIT SINGH - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：朱芬齡上訴法官、鮑晏明上訴法官、潘兆初上訴法官 - 判決日期：2018年10月4日 ### 案情摘要 申請人Karamjit Singh此前向上訴法庭提出上訴，反對高等法院原訟法庭暫委法官Woodcock於2018年3月16日拒絕其司法覆核許可申請的決定。該司法覆核申請旨在推翻酷刑聲請上訴委員會（「委員會」）駁回其不驅回聲請上訴的決定。上訴法庭已於2018年8月2日頒下判決，駁回申請人的上訴。申請人現根據《香港終審法院條例》（Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484）第22(1)(b)條，向上訴法庭申請許可，以向上訴法庭提出上訴。 ### 核心法律爭議 申請人是否獲准向上訴法庭申請許可，以向上訴法庭提出上訴。申請人提出多項理由，包括未獲口頭聆訊、未獲法律代表、未獲通知地址變更義務，以及委員會未有重審其案件。上訴法庭需判斷這些理由是否構成具有重大普遍重要性的法律問題，或屬於「其他理由」而應授予上訴許可。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭認為，申請人提出的理由不構成授予終審法院上訴許可的有效理據。申請人未能指出任何具有重大普遍重要性的法律問題，亦無其他理由可根據《香港終審法院條例》第22(1)(b)條授予許可。儘管上訴法庭曾指出委員會應考慮申請人根據《香港人權法案條例》（Bill of Rights Ordinance, BOR）第2條提出的聲請實質內容，而非僅因逾期而駁回，但上訴法庭已裁定原來的司法覆核申請並無實質理據，且在法律或程序上並無錯誤。因此，將案件發回委員會重審並不適當。 ### 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於2018年8月9日提出的動議通知書，即拒絕授予申請人向上訴法庭提出上訴的許可。 ### 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: RE : KARAMJIT SINGH - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Chu JA, Hon Barma JA, Hon Poon JA - Date of Judgment: 4 October 2018 ### Factual Background The applicant, Karamjit Singh, previously appealed to the Court of Appeal against Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock's decision on 16 March 2018, which refused him leave to apply for judicial review. That judicial review sought to challenge the Torture Claims Appeal Board's (the "Board") decision to dismiss his appeal against the rejection of his non-refoulement claim. The Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal on 2 August 2018. The applicant now seeks leave from the Court of Appeal to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484. ### Key Legal Issues Whether the applicant should be granted leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant raised several grounds, including not being given an oral hearing, lack of legal representation, unawareness of the obligation to notify address changes, and the Board's failure to rehear his case. The Court of Appeal had to determine if these grounds constituted questions of great general or public importance or fell under the "otherwise" limb for granting leave to appeal. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal found that the applicant's stated grounds did not constitute valid reasons for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, nor were there any other reasons under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance to grant leave. Although the Court of Appeal had observed that the Board should have considered the merits of the applicant's claim based on Bill of Rights Ordinance (BOR) risk instead of dismissing it for lateness, the court had already concluded that the intended judicial review application was without merit and that there was no error of law or procedure. Therefore, remitting the case back to the Board was deemed inappropriate. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's notice of motion dated 9 August 2018, thereby refusing leave for the applicant to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. --- ### 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.