上訴終審法院許可的門檻？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Ahmed Zakar - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal, CA) - 法官：潘兆初署理首席法官、林文瀚副庭長、鮑晏明上訴法官 - 判決日期：2019年8月15日 ### 案情摘要 申請人Ahmed Zakar曾向高等法院原訟法庭申請上訴許可，但被拒絕。其後，他向上訴法庭提出續期申請，要求延長上訴期限，該申請亦於2019年5月27日被上訴法庭拒絕。申請人現根據《香港終審法院條例》（香港法例第484章）第22(1)(b)條，向上訴法庭申請許可，以就上訴法庭拒絕其延長上訴期限的決定，向終審法院提出上訴。他提交了書面陳詞，重申其國家不安全，並指上訴委員會忽略了其案件的實際情況。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案的核心法律爭議在於申請人提出的上訴理據是否構成有效的上訴終審法院理據，以及其申請是否符合《香港終審法院條例》所訂明的上訴許可門檻。申請人認為上訴委員會的決定不公平，且忽略了事實，並重申若返回原居地將不安全。 ### 判決理由 法庭分析指，申請人未能針對上訴法庭先前拒絕其延長上訴期限的理由提出任何合理可爭辯的依據，以證明上訴法庭的決定有錯。法庭認為申請人提出的理據不構成有效的上訴終審法院理據。此外，法庭未能察覺案件涉及任何具有重大普遍重要性的法律問題，亦無其他理由授予上訴許可。因此，申請人未能符合《香港終審法院條例》第22(1)(b)條所訂明的法定門檻。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案未有特別引用 ### 裁決與命令 法庭拒絕授予申請人向上訴法庭提出上訴的許可，並駁回其通知書。 ### 判決啟示 本判決重申了向上訴法庭申請上訴終審法院許可的嚴格標準，特別是申請人必須提出具有重大普遍重要性的法律問題，或證明存在其他充分理由。僅僅表達對下級法院裁決的不滿或重申案件背景事實，並不足以滿足這些法定門檻。 --- ### 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 Zakar - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Poon Ag CJHC, Lam VP and Barma JA - Date of Judgment: 15 August 2019 ### Factual Background The applicant, Ahmed Zakar, had previously applied to the Court of First Instance for leave to appeal, which was refused. Subsequently, he made a renewed application to the Court of Appeal for an extension of time to appeal, which was also refused by the Court of Appeal on 27 May 2019. The applicant now sought leave from the Court of Appeal to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against the Court of Appeal's decision to refuse his extension of time application, pursuant to section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484). He submitted written arguments, reiterating that he would not be safe if returned to his country and that the appeal board had ignored the actual facts of his case. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal question in this case was whether the grounds advanced by the applicant constituted valid grounds for an appeal to the Court of Final Appeal, and whether his application met the statutory thresholds for leave to appeal under the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. The applicant contended that the appeal board's decision was unfair, ignored facts, and reiterated his safety concerns if returned. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court analyzed that the applicant failed to engage with the Court of Appeal's previous reasons for refusing his extension of time application, and could not show any reasonably arguable basis that the Court of Appeal was wrong. The Court found that the grounds advanced by the applicant did not constitute valid grounds of appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. Furthermore, the Court could not discern any question of great general or public importance, nor any other basis to grant leave. Therefore, the applicant failed to meet the statutory thresholds under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court refused to grant the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismissed his notice of motion. ### Key Takeaways This judgment reaffirms the stringent standards for obtaining leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. Applicants must demonstrate a question of great general or public importance or other sufficient grounds. Mere dissatisfaction with a lower court's decision or reiteration of factual background is insufficient to meet these statutory thresholds. --- ### 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.