RE SUMI

CAMP 113/2021

[2022] HKCA 842

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 113 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 1138 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.  On 14 September 2021, this court (Chu JA and Barma JA)  handed down a judgment dismissing the applicant’s application for extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung (“the Judge”)  given on 23 February 2021 refusing leave to the applicant to apply for judicial review. The applicant had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board, which dismissed her appeal against the decisions of the Director of Immigration.

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 out of time on 26 October 2021, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant stated in the Notice of Motion that she disagreed with the decision of this court, in that we did not “consider [her] summons properly”, without providing any particular or basis. 

4.  In the affirmation filed on 26 October 2021, the applicant deposed that she “did not get any decision from the court” and that she was informed of the judgment by an Immigration Officer.

5.  In her written submissions lodged on 8 November 2021, the applicant raised various alleged errors on the part of the Judge, as well as repeated the hardship she may face if refouled to Bangladesh.

6.  Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, affirmation 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.  The applicant claimed that she only learned of this court’s judgment from an Immigration Officer, but she did not state when she eventually came to know about the judgment.  We are therefore of the view that the applicant has failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay.

8.  In any event, 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.

9.  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).

10.  For these reasons, the Notice of Motion filed on 26 October 2021 is dismissed.