|
CAMP 555/2021
[2022] HKCA 906
IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE
HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
COURT OF APPEAL
MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 555 OF 2021
(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 1994 OF 2018)
____________________
| RE: |
SITI-KASTURI |
Applicant |
____________________
Before: Hon Barma JA and Au JA in Court
Date of Judgment: 5 July 2022
___________________
J U D G M E N T
___________________
Hon Barma JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):
1. On 25 February 2022, this court (Barma JA and Au JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of DHCJ Bruno Chan dated 17 June 2021 refusing to grant leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board and the decision of the Director of Immigration rejecting her non‑refoulement claim.
2. The facts and issues in the application, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment.[1] We will not repeat them here.
3. The applicant subsequently applied, by a Notice of Motion filed on 1 March 2022, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. The applicant simply stated in the Notice of Motion that she wished “the Court of Final Appeal will consider [her] leave to apply for judicial review”.
4. The applicant, in breach of the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 17 March 2022, failed to lodge written submissions 14 days after the resumption of court business from the general adjournment of court proceedings. The High Court Registry resumed operation on 12 April 2022, which meant that the applicant should have filed her written submissions on or before 26 April 2022.
5. The applicant in fact lodged her submissions late, on 10 May 2022. Given the relatively short delay, we have in this case nonetheless proceeded to consider her written submissions, which merely recited her fears of returning to Indonesia.
6. Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submissions, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on the papers. We have, therefore, determined the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents filed.
7. We are of the view that the matters advanced by the applicant do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal 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, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484. Nor is any such question apparent to us from the matters she has raised.
8. None of the matters stated in the Notice of Motion are in our view reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal. We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).
9. For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 1 March 2022 is dismissed.
(AARIF BARMA)
Justice of Appeal |
(THOMAS AU)
Justice of Appeal |
The applicant acting in person
|