RE MUGIYEM TRI LESTARI

CACV 580/2019

[2020] HKCA 621

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 580 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 916 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1)  Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal

1.1  On 13 May 2020, this Court (Cheung and Yuen JJA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 6 December 2019 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review (‘Decision of the Judge’).

1.2  The facts and issues in the appeal before the Court of Appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

1.3  The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion dated 25 May 2020, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

1.4  The gist of the applicant’s notice of motion is that if she is to be refouled her life would be in danger.  

2)  Legal principles

2.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’) leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

3)  Our view

3.1  The matters stated by the applicant in her notice of motion do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant provided written submissions.  In gist the applicant submitted that she was not aware that a failure to submit skeleton submissions before the Court of Appeal meant that her scheduled hearing was vacated, and that an absence of an oral hearing was an injustice to her.  There is no merit in this argument as the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals were clear.  Further, it is trite that there is no absolute right to an oral hearing: ST v Betty Kwan [2014] 4 HKLRD 277 at para 26.  The applicant then focused her complaints on BOR 2 deficiencies on how there was a lack of legal representation.  It is trite that there is no absolute right to legal representation at all stages of the applicant’s proceedings.  Further, as a matter of fact, BOR 2 in the applicant’s case was considered altogether with the applicant’s risk of torture, risk of persecution and BOR 3 issues in the Director’s Notice of Decision.  It was not a separate hearing with a separate BOR 2 assessment.  Finally, the applicant went on to make various allegations of unfairness without specifics nor particulars on how they relate to her case.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters she has raised in her notice of motion and written submissions.

3.2  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

4)  Disposition

4.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 25 May 2020 is dismissed.