RE CICIK WAHYU

CAMP 49/2022

[2023] HKCA 161

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 49 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1598 OF 2019)

________________________

________________________

________________________

DECISION

________________________

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

I.  Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.  On 28 June 2022, this Court (Cheung and Barma JJA)  handed down a decision ([2022] HKCA 945)  dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge P. Li refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 6 July 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion, seeking leave to appeal against our decision to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant filed her written submissions on 20 July 2022.

3.  In her Notice of Motion, the applicant claimed that she wanted to go to the Court of Final Appeal ‘for the great interest of all asylum seeker’.

4.  In her written submissions, the applicant repeated her claim that her life would be in danger if refouled to Indonesia and claimed that she did not ‘get justice from any office’.

5.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, 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.

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

II.  Legal principles

7.  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.

III.  Our view

8.  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 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 the documents.

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

IV.  Disposition

10.  For these reasons, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.