|
CAMP 108/2019
[2021] HKCA 1022
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 108 OF 2019
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 1080/2017)
____________________
| RE: |
HALDER REKHA RANI |
Applicant |
____________________
| Before: |
Hon Chu JA, Barma JA and Au JA in Court |
| Date of Judgment: |
22 July 2021 |
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 8 December 2020, this court (Chu JA, Barma JA and Au JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the judge”) on 21 September 2018 dismissing her second application for leave for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing her appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting her non‑refoulement claim.
2. The facts and issues in the application, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1] We will not repeat them here.
3. The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion dated 11 December 2020, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:
“The claims that the judgment has made stated is no substance in the grounds of the application is not true.
On the strength of the grounds not made complain about the poor performance of his duty lawyer is due of fearing he will be picked out for misappropriating by the adjudicator.
The applicant gently did not have enough time to address the bundle. Rest of the grounds I will submit as soon as possible.”
4. In the affirmation dated 11 December 2020, the applicant deposed that:
“1. The [judges] were wrong in law in holding that there was no state acquiescence or involvement.
2. The [judges] also failed to find out the clear details of the current situation of Bangladesh”
5. The applicant failed to comply with Practice Direction 2.1 and she did not lodge the skeleton submission within the time limit, despite having been reminded of the same by the direction made by the Registrar of Civil Appeals on 14 December 2020. The applicant was therefore debarred from lodging any written submissions and the application was dealt with on paper on the basis of the materials already filed before the court.
6. Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and affirmation, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers. We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.
7. As we have explained in [17] of our judgment, in order to succeed in the appeal before us the applicant needed to address the only basis upon which the judge struck out and dismissed her application for leave for judicial review, being res judicata. None of the grounds mentioned by the applicant in her Notice of Motion or Affirmation relate to the issue of whether the applicant should be permitted to bring a second application for leave for judicial review. They therefore provide no basis for a further appeal. In any event, those grounds are not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.
8. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
9. For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 11 December 2020 is dismissed.
(Carlye Chu)
Justice of Appeal |
(Aarif Barma)
Justice of Appeal |
(Thomas Au)
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant acting in person
|