TASKEM v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CAMP 103/2018

[2019] HKCA 75

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 103 OF 2018

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 591/2017)

____________

____________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Pang JA (giving the Judgment of the Court) :

1.  On 31 October 2018, this Court handed down a judgment (‘our Judgment’) dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock, given on 25 June 2018, by which Judge Woodcock refused the applicant’s leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  By a Notice of Motion dated 12 November 2018, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against our Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

3.  Notwithstanding the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 15 November 2018, the applicant failed to lodge with this Court her written submissions by 26 November 2018.  Pursuant to paragraph 1 of those directions, therefore, she is deemed to rely only on the representations made in her Notice of Motion.

4.  Under Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484), this Court may grant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal 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.

5.  The Notice of Motion did not set out any question for determination by the Court of Final Appeal. It merely stated that (1) there is some error in law in the decision regarding the applicant; (2) the decision maker relied on country of origin information (“COI”) that was in favour of rejecting the applicant’s claims; (3) officers and courts had ignored evidence of violence in the applicant’s home country; and (4) the decision was biased and did not fairly assess the danger that was present to the applicant’s life.

6.  What was stated in the Notice of Motion hence relates to the applicant’s case and does not involve any question of great general or public importance.

7.  Further, for the reasons given in our Judgment, the matters that were put forward in the Notice of Motion are unarguable.

8.  There is also no other reason for submitting the proposed appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

9.  As the condition for giving leave to appeal is not met, the Notice of Motion dated 12 November 2018 is dismissed.