RE CALIP MYRNA JACOB

CACV 423/2022, [2024] HKCA 198

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 423 OF 2022

(ON AN APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 622 OF 2019)

______________________

______________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Chu VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.  On 23 January 2024, this court handed down a judgment ([2024] HKCA 52) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan given on 21 October 2022 refusing to give her leave to apply for judicial review.

2.  On 25 January 2024, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  She has also put in a written submission to support the application.

3.  Having considered the Notice of Motion and written submission, 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.  We have therefore proceeded to determine the application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.  The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.  Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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.

6.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that she wanted to go to the Court of Final Appeal because she did not get justice.  She did not, however, did not set out any grounds in support of the application.

7.  In her written submission, the applicant set out the brief background to her claim.  She stated that although she had told the truth, the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board did not accept her claim, the Court of First Instance refused to give her leave to apply for judicial review and the Court of Appeal dismissed her appeal.  The applicant further stated that she wanted to go to the Court of Final Appeal to speak for the interest of all asylum seekers.   

8.  What the applicant stated in the Notice of Motion and written submission does not constitute viable grounds for granting leave to appeal.  Critically, she has failed to identify any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance. We also do not see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal have not been met, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.