RE SULRINI AND OTHERS

CACV 129/2021

[2023] HKCA 455

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 129 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1605 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 6 December 2021, this court (Barma JA and Lisa Wong J)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicants’ appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge P Li given on 11 March 2021 refusing to grant leave to the applicants to apply for judicial review. The applicants had sought to review the decisions of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing their appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting their non-refoulement claims.

2.  The facts and issues in the applicants’ appeal, 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 applicants subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion (signed by the 1^st applicant on behalf of herself and the 2^nd and 3^rd applicants)  filed out of time on 14 February 2022, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

4.  In the Notice of Motion, the applicants merely stated that they wished to “go to the Court of Final Appeal”.

5.  In her supporting affirmation, the 1^st applicant deposed (on behalf of herself and the 1^st and 2^nd applicants)  that:

“Affirmation for apply of notice of motion but out of scheduled time. Please accept my apply.”

6.  In her written submissions lodged on 28 February 2022, the 1^st applicant claimed that “there was no reason [for the decision-makers] to reject [their] claim” and that she wished to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

7.  Having considered the applicants’ Notice of Motion, the 1^st applicant’s affirmation and written submissions, 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 applicants’ application on the basis of the documents filed.

8.  The applicants failed to explain how and when they eventually came to know about the judgment of this court.  We are of the view that the applicants have failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.  Further, the delay of around 6 weeks in bringing the present application is not insignificant, and the application is liable to be dismissed on this basis alone.  We have nonetheless proceeded to consider the merits of the application.

9.  The matters advanced by applicants do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicants have failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine, as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.  Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters they have raised.  

10.  None of the matters stated in the Notice of Motion are, in our view, reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

11.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 14 February 2022 is dismissed.