|
CAMP 128/2021
[2022] HKCA 1789
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 128 OF 2021
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 1596 OF 2018)
____________________
____________________
Before: Hon Chu VP and Barma JA in Court
Date of Judgment: 12 December 2022
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 7 January 2022, this court (Chu JA (as she then was) 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 dated 20 January 2020 refusing to grant (i) extension of time to apply for leave to apply for judicial review; and (ii) leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board, which dismissed her appeal against the decisions 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 on 31 January 2022, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the applicant asked this Court to “reconsider” her application, without setting out any grounds of appeal.
4. In breach of the directions by the Registrar of Civil Appeals, the applicant failed to lodge written submissions with the court. She is thus deemed to have abandoned her right to rely on written submissions.
5. Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, 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 matters advanced 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.
7. None of the matters stated in the Notice of Motion are 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).
8. For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 31 January 2022 is dismissed.
(Carlye Chu)
Vice-President |
(Aarif Barma)
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant acting in person
|