RE DWI SURYANI SAFITRI

CAMP 150/2019

[2022] HKCA 54

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 150 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 1371/2018)

____________________

____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

1.  On 23 March 2021, this court (Poon CJHC and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ KW Lung given on 31 January 2019 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”), which dismissed her appeal against the decision of the Director of Immigration.

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 6 July 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that:

“The High Court and the Court of Appeal refused my leave to apply for judicial review. I did not get justice. For the great interest of my life I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.”

4.  In the affirmation filed on 6 July 2021, the applicant deposed:

“Affirmation for Apply my Notice of Motion as I am late. I did not get letter.”

5.  The applicant failed to comply with Practice Direction 2.1 and lodged her written submissions late, on 13 August 2021.  In principle, the applicant was liable to be debarred from lodging any written submissions and the application be dealt with on paper on the basis of the materials already filed before the court.  However, we have nonetheless considered her written submissions, wherein she merely repeated the procedural background of her case and stated that her delay in bringing the intended appeal was caused by sickness after giving birth to her child.

6.  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.

7.  The applicant claimed that she did not get the “letter” (we assume this to refer to this court’s judgment) but she did not explain why that was the case.  She also did not explain how she eventually came to know about the judgment.  We are therefore of the view that the applicant has failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

8.  We should add that the reason now given by the applicant in her written submissions for the delay in bringing the intended appeal was not advanced by her in her application to this court by way of summons dated 2 July 2019 or in the Notice of Motion.  Nor would this purported reason, unsupported by evidence and lacking in particulars, have in any event assisted her case in either the renewed application for extension of time or the present application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

9.  In any event, the matters stated by the applicant do not 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.

10.  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).

11.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 6 July 2021 is dismissed.