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：ISLAM RAFIQUL - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：林文瀚副庭長、袁家寧上訴法官、關淑馨上訴法官 - 判決日期：2019年1月24日 ### 案情摘要 申請人ISLAM RAFIQUL在高等法院原訟法庭申請司法覆核許可被拒絕後，向高等法院上訴法庭提出上訴，該上訴於2018年9月3日被駁回。隨後，申請人於2018年9月4日提交動議通知書，尋求上訴至終審法院的許可。申請人提交了書面陳詞，闡述了其案件的事實背景，並引用了多項判例，主張在處理酷刑聲請時應採用高標準的公平性，酷刑聲請上訴委員會在審議其案件實質理據時犯錯，且決策者有普通法上的公平行事責任。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於申請人是否符合《香港終審法院條例》(Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance) 第22(1)(b)條所訂明的上訴至終審法院的法定準則。具體而言，法院需判斷申請人提出的問題是否涉及「具有重大而廣泛重要性的問題」(questions of great, general, or public importance)，或是否屬於「其他理由」(otherwise limb) 應獲准上訴的情況。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭根據《香港終審法院條例》第22(1)(b)條的規定，審查了申請人提出的上訴理據。法院認為，申請人在其動議通知書及書面陳詞中，並未提出任何具有重大、普遍或公眾重要性的問題。此外，法院亦未發現有任何「其他理由」應授予上訴許可。因此，申請人未能滿足上訴至終審法院的法定準則，其申請被駁回。法院根據實務指示2.1第3段，在沒有口頭聆訊的情況下，依據書面文件決定此申請。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回了申請人於2018年9月4日提交的動議通知書，即拒絕其上訴至終審法院的許可申請。 ### 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: ISLAM RAFIQUL - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Lam VP, Yuen JA, Kwan JA - Date of Judgment: 24 January 2019 ### Factual Background The applicant, ISLAM RAFIQUL, had his application for leave to apply for judicial review refused by a Deputy High Court Judge. His subsequent appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed on 3 September 2018. Following this, on 4 September 2018, the applicant filed a notice of motion seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. He submitted written arguments outlining the factual background of his case and citing various authorities, contending that high standards of fairness were required in torture claim determinations, that the Torture Claims Appeal Board erred in not considering the substantive merits of his case, and that the decision-maker had a common law duty to act fairly. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was whether the applicant met the statutory criteria for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484). Specifically, the Court had to determine if the applicant raised questions of "great, general, or public importance" or if there was any other basis to grant leave under the "otherwise" limb. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal examined 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 that the applicant did not raise any questions of great, general, or public importance in his notice of motion and submissions. Furthermore, no basis was found to grant leave under the "otherwise" limb. Consequently, the applicant failed to satisfy the statutory criteria for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, and his application was dismissed. The Court determined the application on papers without an oral hearing, pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's notice of motion filed on 4 September 2018, thereby refusing his application for leave 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.