|
CAMP 486/2021
[2023] HKCA 343
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 486 OF 2021
(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2785 OF 2018)
____________________
| RE: |
SRI LESTARI |
Applicant |
____________________
| Before : |
Hon Cheung and G Lam JJA in Court |
| Date of Decision : |
16 March 2023 |
____________________
DECISION
____________________
Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :
I. Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal
1. On 4 May 2022, this Court (Cheung and G Lam JJA) gave the decision dismissing the applicant’s extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To given on 12 May 2021 in which he refused to grant leave to apply for judicial review against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board.
2. The applicant now applies, by a notice of motion supported by an affirmation and a written submission, for leave to appeal against our decision to the Court of Final Appeal out of time.
3. Having considered the applicant’s documents, 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 applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.
4. The applicant’s notice of motion is glaringly late. According to section 24 of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘HKCFAO’), the applicant’s notice of motion ought to have been filed with the Court within 28 days of our extension decision. The applicant is two months late. The applicant simply stated in her affirmation that she was out of time and asks for acceptance. No further details were provided. This is a bare allegation unsupported by any explanation. We will not accept the applicant’s reasons for the delay.
5. The applicant stated in the notice of motion that because her claim was rejected by the Director, the Board, the High Court and the Court of Appeal, she now wishes to go to the Court of Final Appeal.
6. In the applicant’s written submissions, she stated she has ‘life threat’ in her country. She stated that the law and order of her country is bad. She stated that her problem was real. She wants to go to Court of Final Appeal.
II. Legal principles
7. 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.
III. Our view
8. The matters stated by the applicant in her notice of motion 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 documents.
9. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).
IV. Disposition
10. For these reasons, the notice of motion is dismissed.
(Peter Cheung)
Justice of Appeal |
(Godfrey Lam)
Justice of Appeal |
Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
|