RE SRI PUJIASTUTI

CACV 469/2022, [2024] HKCA 751

On Appeal From [2022] HKCFI 3565

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 469 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2587 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

I. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.  On 30 January 2024, this Court (Cheung and Au JJA)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung given on 23 November 2022 in which he refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review.

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

3.  The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion filed on 14 February 2024, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in his notice of motion the following :

‘ Dear Sir/Madam,

With due respect and humble submissions I beg to you that I am not agree with the decision of the Court, because this decision made me liable to remove from Hong Kong to a risk state in my home country. I have severe problem in my country. My enemy is still looking for me. If I return back to my home country I will be killed by my enemy, but the Torture Claims Appeal Board and the Director of Immigration did not scrutinize my problem properly.’

4.  The applicant stated in her written submissions in summary the following points :

1)  The Director and Board did not scrutinize her claim properly;

2)  The decision has a significant effect on the applicant’s torture claim;

3)  The Judge did not apply the principle of irrationality;

4)  The Judge did not apply high standard of fairness;

5)  The Judge did not apply the principle of procedural unfairness;

6)  The applicant was disappointed despite having submitted all proofs;

7)  The Judge may not have ‘analyzed’ or ‘received’ the applicant’s claims;

8)  The Adjudicator did not give the applicant a chance to arrange relevant evidence;

9)  The applicant’s fundamental right not to be subjected to torture is involved;

10)  The Board relied on source of news not officially recognized or is simply hearsay;

11)  The applicant will be killed if she returns to her home country; and

12)  It is safe for the applicant to stay in Hong Kong.

II.  Our view

5.  Under section 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484)  (‘Ordinance’)  leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal will only be granted if the question to be determined involves great general or public importance or otherwise ought to be determined by the Court of Final Appeal.

6.  The matters stated by the applicant in her notice of motion and written submissions are broad and vague assertions of non-refoulement claim laws that do not pertain to nor explain and elaborate the particular circumstances of the applicant.  In any event, the matters stated do not constitute grounds for granting leave to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has failed to identify any question of general or public importance for the Court of Final Appeal to determine in accordance with section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters raised by the applicant. 

7.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b)  of the Ordinance.

III.  Disposition

8.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 14 February 2024 is dismissed.