|
CACV 440/2020
[2021] HKCA 1309
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
CIVIL APPEAL NO 440 OF 2020
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2150 OF 2018)
____________________
| RE: |
SRI INDARSIH |
Applicant |
____________________
Before: Hon Cheung, G Lam JJA and S T Poon J in Court
Date of Written Submissions: 7 June 2021
Date of Judgment: 15 September 2021
_________________
J U D G M E N T
_________________
Hon G Lam JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 29 April 2021, this Court (Cheung, G Lam JJA and S T Poon J) handed down its judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 19 August 2020 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review in relation to her non‑refoulement claim.
2. The facts and issues of the appeal as well as this Court’s reasons for dismissing it are set out in our judgment. We will not repeat them here.
3. The applicant now applies, by a Notice of Motion filed on 4 May 2021, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant stated in her Notice of Motion that there was some error in the decision without specifically stating what it was. She made certain broad and vague complaints including that the decision maker relied on country of origin information that was against her, that the Court ignored the evidence of violence towards minorities, and that there had been no fair assessment of her dangerous situation. None of these grounds is supported with any particulars.
4. The applicant’s written submissions recite certain background factual matters of her case and then set out various provisions of treaties, the Basic Law and statutes of Hong Kong and passages from previous non‑refoulement cases, without however in any way explaining how those materials relate and apply to the particular circumstances of her case.
5. Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484), 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.
6. In our view, the matters stated by the applicant in her Notice of Motion and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has failed to identify any question of general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b). Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters she has raised.
7. We do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).
8. For these reasons, the Notice of Motion dated 4 May 2021 is dismissed.
(Peter Cheung)
Justice of Appeal |
(Godfrey Lam)
Justice of Appeal |
(S T Poon)
Judge of the Court of First Instance |
The Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
|