上訴至終審法院的許可標準？申請駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：MEHMOOD IKHLAS - 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、張澤祐上訴法官 - 判決日期：2019年8月29日 ### 案情摘要 申請人Mehmood Ikhlas就高等法院原訟法庭法官Campbell-Moffat於2018年11月12日作出的判決，申請延長上訴時間。上訴法庭（林文瀚副庭長和潘兆初上訴法官）於2019年5月27日拒絕了該申請，理由是擬議的司法覆核沒有成功機會。申請人隨後於2019年6月3日提交動議通知書，尋求上訴至終審法院的許可。 ### 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。申請人聲稱上訴法庭的判決存在法律錯誤，且不合理，並指法庭忽略了大量關於針對少數族裔暴力的證據。上訴法庭則需判斷申請人提出的理據是否符合《香港終審法院條例》(Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484)) 第22(1)(b)條規定的上訴許可標準，即是否涉及具有重大普遍重要性的問題或「其他理由」。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭分析認為，申請人未能針對法庭駁回其司法覆核申請的理由提出異議，更遑論證明法庭的判斷有誤。法庭指出，申請人在動議通知書或其誓章中提出的任何內容，均不值得提交終審法院審理。此外，申請人並未提出任何具有重大普遍重要性的問題，因此不符合《香港終審法院條例》第22(1)(b)條規定的上訴許可標準。 ### 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向上訴至終審法院的許可申請。法庭裁定申請人未能符合《香港終審法院條例》第22(1)(b)條規定的上訴許可標準。 ### 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: MEHMOOD IKHLAS - Court: Court of Appeal (CA) - Judge: Hon Poon Ag CJHC, Lam VP and Cheung JA - Date of Judgment: 29 August 2019 ### Factual Background The applicant, Mehmood Ikhlas, sought an extension of time to appeal against a decision made by Campbell-Moffat J on 12 November 2018. The Court of Appeal (Lam VP and Poon JA) refused this application on 27 May 2019, finding that the intended judicial review had no prospect of success. The applicant subsequently filed a notice of motion on 3 June 2019, seeking leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal issue was whether the applicant had sufficient grounds to be granted leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant claimed there was an error in law in the Court of Appeal's decision, that it was unreasonable, and that the court ignored overwhelming evidence of violence towards minorities. The Court of Appeal had to determine if the applicant's grounds met the statutory criteria for leave to appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484), specifically whether it involved a question of great general or public importance or fell under the "or otherwise" limb. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal analyzed that the applicant failed to address the reasons for the dismissal of his judicial review application, let alone demonstrate that the court was wrong. The court found that nothing in the notice of motion or the applicant's affirmation merited submission to the Court of Final Appeal for determination. Furthermore, the applicant did not raise any question of great general or public importance, thus failing to meet the statutory criterion for granting 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). ### Key Precedents & Statutes None prominently cited ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed the applicant's application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The court found that the applicant failed to meet the statutory criteria under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance. ### 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.