SITI MUNAWAROH v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CACV 374/2018

[2019] HKCA 63

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 374 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 740/2017)

_______________

_______________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

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

1.  On 16 November 2018, this Court handed down a Judgment (‘our Judgment’) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of DHCJ Woodcock (‘the Judge’) dated 31 July 2018.  By that decision the Judge refused to grant the applicant leave to apply for judicial review (‘the Judge’s Decision’).

2.  The facts and issues in that appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our Judgment.  We will not repeat them.

3.  By a Notice of Motion dated 27 November 2018, the applicant applies for leave to appeal our Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  Having considered the said Notice of Motion, 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.

4.  The applicant stated in her Notice of Motion various grounds of appeal including that there was an error in law in failing to consider the severity of the attacks against her, plus taking into account such irrelevant considerations as how she did not receive any direct threat or make any report to the police.  It was further submitted that she would suffer a serious risk of harm if refouled and that this Court had failed to give sufficient reasons of why she would not be subject to risks of torture and/or persecution upon repatriation to Indonesia.

5.  As regards the applicant’s skeleton submissions filed on 11 December 2018, they are virtually a word-for-word repetition of her skeleton submissions filed to this Court on 16 October 2018, in support of her application for an appeal against the Judge’s Decision, save for the last paragraph where the applicant again argued that her personal circumstances of a change in faith to Christianity shows that there is a real risk of her suffering harm from her family if she returns to Indonesia which is a Muslim dominant country.

6.  Under Section 22(1)(b) 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.

7.  Neither the Notice of Motion nor the skeleton submissions set out any question for determination by the Court of Final Appeal.  What was stated in the Notice of Motion and skeleton submissions relates to the applicant’s case and does not involve any question of great general or public importance.  Further, for the reasons given in our Judgment, the matters advanced in the Notice of Motion and the skeleton submissions are unarguable.

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

9.  For these reasons the application is dismissed.