RE NGUYEN THI HUONG AND ANOTHER

CAMP 307/2021

[2023] HKCA 330

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 307 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2200 of 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Chu VP giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.  On 19 January 2023, this Court handed down our judgment ([2023] HKCA 70)  refusing to extend the time for the 1^st and 2^nd applicants to appeal the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 17August 2020 which refused their application for leave to apply for judicial review.    

2.  On 27 January 2023, the 1^st applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  Despite directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the 1^st applicant has not put in a written submission to support the application.

3.  Having considered the notice of motion, 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 1^st applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.  The background to this case and the 1^st applicant’s claim has 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 the following in support of the application:

(1)  The Court of Appeal judgment was unsatisfactory.

(2)  The 1^st applicant’s life will be seriously threatened and in danger because the creditors and gangsters in Vietnam are cruel and violent, have no regard for the law and will readily kill to satisfy their anger and ferocity.  The 1^st applicant could be tortured, beaten or killed if the gangsters get too angry and cannot control their emotion and behaviour.  

(3)  Internal relocation is not feasible because the gangsters have a nationwide network. Further, the 1^st applicant will face many difficulties and obstacles in that her health is not good and she is not an active person, which will disadvantage her in the labour market, and there is also no guarantee that she will be able to adapt to the new environment and able to make a living.

(4)  The Immigration Department did not consider the 1^st applicant’s human rights under the Basic law, the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance and the international covenants.

7.  The matters advanced by the 1^st applicant in the notice of motion do not afford any basis for granting leave to appeal.  Importantly, they all concern the 1^st applicant’s claim and personal circumstances, and do not show that the intended appeal involves any question of great general or public importance.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, it is futile to extend the time for the filing of the notice of motion.  Accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion.