RE SHARMA ASHA

CACV 565/2019

[2020] HKCA 618

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 565 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1684 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

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

1)  Leave to appeal to Court of Final Appeal

1.1  On 13 May 2020, this Court (Cheung JA and G Lam J) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock given on 28 November 2019 in which she refused to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review (‘Decision of the Judge’).

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

1.3  The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion dated 18 May 2020, for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

1.4  In the notice of motion the applicant stated that she has problems in her home country and she needs time to stay in Hong Kong to solve her problems.  She stated that there is danger in returning to her home country.

1.5  The applicant provided written submissions.  She submitted that if she is to return she would be tortured or killed by her enemies.  There is state acquiescence and the system is corrupt.  The applicant’s enemies are still looking for her.  Her only hope is to stay in Hong Kong.

2)  Legal principles

2.  Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) (‘HKCFAO’) 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.

3)  Our view

3.1  The matters stated by the applicant in her notice of motion and written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave 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 in accordance with section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.  Nor is there any such question apparent to us from the matters she has raised in her notice of motion and written submissions.

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

4)  Disposition

4.  For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 18 May 2020 is dismissed.