|
CAMP 279/2021
[2021] HKCA 1860
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 279 OF 2021
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1850 OF 2018)
_____________________
_____________________
Before: Hon Chu and M Poon JJA in Court
Date of Judgment: 15 December 2021
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
Hon Chu JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 19 October 2021, this court handed down judgment ([2021] HKCA 1521) dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge Lung given on 17 June 2020 refusing her application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of her non-refoulement claim.
2. On 15 November 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion applying for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant has also lodged a written submission on 29 November 2021.
3. Having considered the applicant’s 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 applicant’s 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 Notice of Motion stated that:
(1) The applicant disagrees with the court’s decision on the application for time extension to appeal because the decision maker did not “verify” her summons properly.
(2) The decision is not fair. The judge just relied on hearsay.
(3) The applicant will be killed by her enemy. The decision makes her liable to be returned to a state of risk.
(4) High standard of fairness is required to determine the claim.
7. The written submission repeated the written submission lodged in support of the renewed application for extending the time to appeal (see [18] of our judgment). In addition, it stated that:
(1) The applicant did not get the order refusing her leave to apply for judicial review, which was why she applied for extension of time, but the Judge may not have analysed her problem;
(2) The applicant will face danger and hardship if she returns to her country;
(3) She will be killed by her enemy who is still looking for her because there is no assurance that there will be state protection: and
(4) The applicant would like to have some time to bring in new documents relating to her claim from her home country.
8. We are of the view that the grounds and arguments put forward by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal. Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.
9. Further, for the reasons we gave at [19] to [21] of our judgment, the matters raised in the notice of motion and written submission are unarguable. Further, the request for time to gather and submit new documents to support her claim is misplaced in that it does not fall on the Court of Appeal to examine the applicant’s claim afresh or to assess the merits of her claim.
10. Nor do we see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
11. As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we accordingly dismiss the Notice of Motion.
| (Carlye Chu) |
(Maggie Poon) |
| Justice of Appeal |
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person
|