|
CAMP 12/2022
[2022] HKCA 1887
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 12 OF 2022
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 746 OF 2018)
____________________
| RE: |
AKTER SHORNALEE |
Applicant |
____________________
Before: Hon Barma JA and Au JA in Court
Date of Judgment: 30 December 2022
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 28 March 2022, this court (Barma JA and Au JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ CP Pang dated 17 July 2020 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissing the appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting the applicant’s non-refoulement claim.
2. The facts and issues in the application, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1] We will not repeat them here.
3. The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed out of time on 13 June 2022, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, she stated that she was dissatisfied with the decision of this court, and that she “[wanted] to go to the Court of Final Appeal”. In her supporting affirmation, she merely acknowledged that her application was out of time.
4. In her written submissions lodged on 27 June 2022, the applicant set out the background of her case and repeated the dangers she allegedly faced should she be refouled.
5. Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, affirmation and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers. We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.
6. The applicant failed to explain how and when she eventually came to know about the judgment of this court. We are therefore of the view that the applicant has failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay. The application is out of time for around 7 weeks, which is not insignificant, and the application could be dismissed on this basis alone. However, we have proceeded to consider the merits of the application.
7. The matters advanced by the applicant do not in any event constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal 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, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484. Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters she has raised.
8. None of the matters stated in the Notice of Motion are therefore in our view reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
9. For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 13 June 2022 is dismissed.
(AARIF BARMA)
Justice of Appeal |
(THOMAS AU)
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant acting in person
|