Re Moreno Imelda Sagun

CACV 604/2018

[2019] HKCA 676

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 604 OF 2018

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 389 OF 2018)

_____________________

_____________________

Before: Hon Yeung Ag CJHC, Pang JA and Lisa Wong J in Court

Date of Written Submissions: 29 April 2019

Date of Judgment: 12 July 2019

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

Hon Yeung Ag CJHC (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.By a judgment dated 8 April 2019 ([2019] HKCA 422), the Court of Appeal (Yeung Ag CJHC and Lisa Wong J) dismissed the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Josiah Lam (“the Judge”) dated 19 December 2018 in HCAL 389/2018 refusing to grant leave to her to apply for judicial review.

2.By a Notice of Motion dated 15 April 2019, the applicant now seeks leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  

3.In the Notice of Motion, the applicant set out the following grounds:

“The judge did not address the issues in the skeleton submission dated 01/03/2019. And I therefore verily believe that the judges have not considered applicant appeal thoroughly.

The Decision is betray (sic) a bias and formula approach unlikely fair access the danger of my life and clearly to reject my claims.

The applicant will be picked out for misappropriating by the adjudicator (sic).”

4.In compliance with the direction given by Master Au-Yeung on 17 April 2019, the applicant lodged her written submissions on 29 April 2019.  In her written submissions, the applicant reiterated her case that she would face risk of harm and torture by her abusive husband and the drug syndicates if she were to return to the Philippines. She also complained that the Court of Appeal rejected her written submissions dated 1 March 2019 for the purpose of quick disposal of her case.

5.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.

6.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.  At [10] of our judgement, we had explained that the applicant’s case was dismissed on the issue of credibility by the Torture Claims Appeal Board and we endorsed the Judge’s findings that the applicant’s case was devoid of merit and there was no justification for reversal of the Judge’s decision.  The grounds and complaints put forward by her in the Notice of Motion and her written submissions do not constitute grounds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. 

7.For the reasons that we gave in our judgment of 8 April 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 and her written submissions involve an arguable point or a question of great general or public importance. We do not see any basis for granting leave under the “otherwise” limb either.  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