LILI LESTARI AND ANOTHER v. MR WILLIAM LAM, ESQ., TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD

CAMP 249/2020

[2021] HKCA 1732

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 249 OF 2020

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 545 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 24 August 2021, this Court gave its decision (“the CA Decision”)  dismissing the Applicants’ application for leave to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 1 December 2020 refusing to grant an extension of time to the Applicant to appeal an earlier decision of the Deputy Judge dated 30 June 2020 refusing to grant leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 14 December 2016.

2.  The 1^st Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 29 October 2021 for leave to appeal the CA Decision to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the 1^st Applicant complained about the assessment of COI by the Director and/or the Board, and that her claim for non-refoulement protection was not fairly assessed.  She also requested to be provided with legal representation.  It would appear from the 1^st Applicant’s written submissions received by the court on 11 November 2021 that she intends to apply for leave to appeal on behalf of herself and also on behalf of the 2^nd Applicant (a minor).  In view of the fact that there are not any minor-specific non-refoulement grounds relevant to the 2^nd Applicant, this application shall be treated as an application of both the 1^st and 2^nd Applicants for leave to appeal.  For the avoidance of doubt, the fact that the 2^nd Applicant is not legally represented is treated as an irregularity without rendering her application a nullity.

3.  Under s 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal 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.

4.  No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion.  We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal.  There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

5.  Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.