DAVID HONEYLETH MANUEL AND ANOTHER v. TORTURE CLAIMS APPEAL BOARD / NON-REFOULEMENT CLAIMS PETITON OFFICE

CAMP 21/2021

[2021] HKCA 1532

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 21 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 847 OF 2017)

________________________

________________________

____________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

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

1.  On 10 September 2021, this Court gave its decision (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicants’ application for extension of time to appeal the decision of Campbell-Moffat J dated 19 May 2020 refusing to grant to the Applicants leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 23 October 2017.

2.  The Applicants now apply by Notice of Motion dated 24 September 2021 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated: “I want to challenge the decision”.  There is no affirmation filed in support of the application. The 1^st Applicant’s written submissions dated 12 October 2021 repeat, in substance, her claim for non-refoulement protection and do not raise anything new.

3.  Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final 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 Ordinance.

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

6.  For the avoidance of doubt, the lack of legal representation for the 2^nd Applicant (a minor) is treated as an irregularity without rendering the proceedings a nullity.