BARROGA ESCOLASTICA TEJERO v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 193/2020

[2021] HKCA 279

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 193 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1540 OF 2018)

_________________

_________________

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon G Lam J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 22 December 2020, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s judgment of 15 December 2020 (Lam VP and G Lam J): [2020] HKCA 1020. In that judgment this Court dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan on 8 June 2020 dismissing her application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) at the discretion of this Court or the CFA 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 CFA for decision.

3.  In her Notice of Motion as well as her written submissions lodged on 12 January 2021, the Applicant repeated her arguments made in the substantive appeal regarding lack of legal and language assistance.  This Court has already explained in its judgment why those arguments are rejected.  As has been held on repeated occasions, the high standards of fairness required by law do not necessarily entail free legal representation at all stages of the proceedings or interpretation service being made available at any time the applicant desires: see Re Zunariyah [2018] HKCA 14; Re Lopchan Subash [2018] HKCA 37; Re Gurnishan Singh [2018] HKCA 704; Re Gurung Sagar [2019] HKCA 658; and Din Shamas v Torture Claims Appeal Board/Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office [2019] HKCA 1403.

4.  In her written submissions the Applicant complained that the Board’s decision was not read back or translated to her, but this is not a ground raised in her Form 86 for the application for leave to apply for judicial review or in the supporting affirmation.

5.  The Applicant further complained that this Court had not fully dealt with her arguments advanced on the appeal.  We disagree. In particular, we consider that paragraphs 6 to 10 of her skeleton submissions for the appeal, which related to the point about language assistance, had been adequately dealt with in this Court’s judgment.

6.  In conclusion, we do not consider that the Applicant has raised any reasonably arguable ground of appeal on the merits or any question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal. Nor has she shown any reason why her case ought for some other reasons to be submitted to the CFA for determination.

7.  For these reasons, the application is dismissed.