RE FITRIANI

CAMP 45/2022

[2023] HKCA 344

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 45 OF 2022

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2993 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

____________________

DECISION

____________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

I.  Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal

1.  On 28 June 2022, this Court (Cheung and Barma JJA) gave the decision dismissing the applicant’s extension of time to appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge P Li given on 28 September 2021 by 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 a written submission, for leave to appeal against our decision to the Court of Final Appeal.

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 notice of motion stated that :

‘ I would like to inform to Court of Final Appeal. There were error of law. I am disagree with the decision made by the Director of Immigration and as well as the decision made by the Director of Immigration and as well as the decision made by the Adjudicator of Torture Claim Appeal Board. I am totally disagree with the decision maker authorities. They were totally relied on the web news information. There is no any Investigation in my case so I request for Revived my case.’

5.  In her written submission, the applicant stated that she had the basic right to understand the contents of the judgment.　 She stated that no assistance was given to her regarding BOR 2 risk.　 She stated that the appellate court should point out such misbehaviour.

II.  Legal principles

6.  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

7.  The matters stated by the applicant in her notice of motion and written submission 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 the documents.

8.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

IV.  Disposition

9.  For these reasons, the notice of motion is dismissed.