Re Fatima Mrs

CAMP 146/2018

[2019] HKCA 590

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 146 OF 2018

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1133 OF 2017)

_______________

_______________

_____________________

J U D G M E N T

_____________________

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

1.By a judgment dated 25 February 2019 ([2019] HKCA 215), this Court (Hon Barma and Poon JJA) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam dated 2 August 2018 refusing to grant leave to her to apply for judicial review.  The intended judicial review was against the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 23 June 2017.  The applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.

2.The facts and issues in the appeal, as well as the Court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in the judgment.  We will not repeat them here.

3.By a notice of motion dated 27 February 2019, the applicant applied for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.

4.In the notice of motion, the applicant set out the following grounds :

“ The claims that the Judgement has made stated is no substance in the grounds of the application is not true.

On the strength of the grounds not made a complaint about the poor performance of his duty lawyer is due to fearing he will be picked out for misappropriating by the Adjudicator.

The applicant gently did not have enough time to address the bundle.  Rest of the grounds, I will submit as soon as possible.”       

5.In compliance with the direction given by Master Au-Yeung on 28 February and 14 March 2019, the applicant lodged her written submissions on 1 April 2019.  In her written submissions, the applicant cited some legal provisions and case authorities in relation to human rights without referring to her own case and further advanced the following grounds of appeal:

(i)   The decision of disposing the applicant’s torture claim made her liable to be removed and it affected her substantive right to seek non-refoulement protection and not to be subjected to torture; and

(ii)   There are minimum standards of procedural fairness required in the decision making process and the decision maker is under a duty to act fairly.

6.We have duly considered the applicant’s notice of motion and her written submissions.  Pursuant to paragraph 3 of Practice Direction 2.1, this application is processed on papers without any oral hearing.

7.Under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, 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.  For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 25 February 2019, we did not see any prospect of success in the applicant’s intended appeal against the Judge’s order.  None of the questions raised by the applicant in the notice of motion or in her written submissions involve any question of great general or public importance is such that it ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision.  The statutory criteria for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap. 484) are not met.

8.Accordingly, we refuse to give the applicant leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal and dismiss her notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person