RE NANA RIYANI

CACV 163/2024, [2025] HKCA 355

On appeal from [2024] HKCFI 1009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 163 OF 2024

(ON AN APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1301 OF 2019)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Chu VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 21 February 2025, this court handed down a judgment ([2025] HKCA 131) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Lung given on 18 April 2024 dismissing her application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 6 March 2025, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. She has also lodged a written submission to support the application.

3.  Having considered the Notice of Motion and the written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing. We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment. We will not repeat them.

5.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted if the question involved in the appeal is one which, by reason of its great general or public importance, or otherwise, ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.

6.  The Notice of Motion stated that the Court disregarded her dangerous situation. The written submission further stated that:

(1)  The danger faced by the applicant is obvious. The Director fails to understand that although her problem is a private issue, it reflects a bigger problem in the state, namely the corruption and inability of the government to solve her issue.

(2)  Human trafficking is a serious problem in Indonesia, and victim services are overwhelmed by the large number of victims. This was reported in an article published in Myanmar Times on 18 January 2018. The COI referred to by the Board was only based on the claims made by the Indonesian government. The Board did not understand and was insensitive to the adverse situation of women and children in Indonesia.

(3)  The prosecution risk to the applicant is obvious. In Indonesia, which is a Muslim country, women and children who do not marry the men arranged by their parents are treated as outcasts. These are well reported in newspapers. All these show that the applicant and her children are facing horrifying danger if they return to Indonesia. The applicant’s fear is not unfounded.

7.  We are of the view that the grounds and arguments put forward by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds of appeal for the following reasons:

(1)  What was stated in the Notice of Motion and the grounds of application relate solely to the circumstances and facts of the applicant’s claim. No question of great general and public importance has been identified, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance, has been identified.

(2)  The complaints that the Board relied on inappropriate COI and failed to understand the danger of human trafficking faced by women and children as well as the discriminatory treatments to women and children who refuse to undergo arranged marriage are new points that had not been in the application before the Judge nor in the appeal before this Court. It is well established principle that the court will not permit new points to be raised for the first time in an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

(3)  The applicant’s grounds and arguments do not engage the reasons for dismissing her appeal: see [13] of our judgment.

8.  We also do not see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, the Notice of Motion is dismissed.