RE JUMIATI AND ANOTHER

CAMP 66/2019

[2021] HKCA 190

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 66 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 478/2018)

____________________

____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.  On 25 October 2019, this court (Cheung JA and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicants’ application for leave to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan (“the judge”) on 11 January 2019 refusing extension of time for applying for judicial review. The applicants had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing their appeal from the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting their non‑refoulement claim.

2.  The facts and issues in the application for leave to 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 dated 31 October 2019, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

4.  Although it has subsequently been held by the Court of Final Appeal in Re H and AH (FACV 1 & 2/2020, [2020] HKCFA 22) that leave to appeal is not required in cases in which an application for leave to bring judicial review proceedings is dismissed for being out of time, it will be seen from our earlier judgment at [15] that the judge below considered the merits of the proposed judicial review, and found that there were no merits in it, and refused the extension of time on this basis. As we pointed out at [16] of our earlier judgment, the proposed appeal to us also was wholly lacking in merits, as the intended grounds of appeal failed to engage with and identify any error in the judge’s decision.

5.  Further, in the present case, the applicants’ Notice of Motion consists simply of a plea for reconsideration of their case, and discloses no ground of general or public importance for consideration by the Court of Final Appeal, as is required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484).  As such, the conditions for granting leave to appeal are not met, and no matters have been raised which are reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.  We also see no basis for granting leave under the “or otherwise” limb.

6.  For these reasons, the applicants’ Notice of Motion is dismissed.