Re Sumiatun and Another

CACV 226/2018

[2019] HKCA 93

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 226 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 553/2017)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 26 October 2018, this court (Yeung Ag CJHC and Barma JA) handed down a judgment dismissing the applicants’ appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock (“the judge”) on 7 June 2018 refusing leave to the applicants to apply for judicial review. The applicants had sought to review the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dismissing their appeal from the decisions of the Director of Immigration rejecting their non‑refoulement claims.

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, 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 applicants subsequently applied, by a notice of motion dated 6 November 2018, for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicants stated in their notice of motion that:

“I am not satisfied with the decision because this will lead my life more danger so I am seeking help from court. I was not aware I had to lodge skeleton submissions. I did not know the failure to submit skeleton submissions mean no oral hearing. It is unfair that High Court judges not heard me in person. There was lack of legal representation for BOR2 assessment on my claim because the my problem still going on in Indonesia.”

4.In compliance with the directions of the court, the applicants lodged a written submission in support of their application on 20 November 2018.  In their written submission, the applicants reiterated the matters raised in the Notice of Motion.

5.Having considered the applicants’ notice of motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining an application of this kind on papers.  We have, therefore, determined the applicants’ application on the basis of their notice of motion and written submission.

6.The matters stated by the applicants in their notice of motion and written submission do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicants have 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 they have raised in their notice of motion and written submission.  We have given reasons for vacating the appeal hearing at [8] of our judgment.  Further, the ground based on the lack of legal representation in their claim based on BOR2 risk is simply a repetition of the argument raised in the Form 86.  It is not directed towards any error in our judgment.  It is thus not reasonably arguable before the Court of Final Appeal.

7.We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

8.For these reasons, the notice of motion dated 6 November 2018 is dismissed.

The applicants acting in person