Re Imbuh Karina Binti Yamroni

CAMP 61/2019

[2019] HKCA 1294

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 61 OF 2019

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL 254/2017)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Lam VP, Barma and Au JJA in Court

Date of Written submission:  3 October 2019

Date of Judgment:  22 November 2019

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Lam VP (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 26 August 2019, the Court (Lam VP and Barma JA) handed down a judgment ([2019] HKCA 950) refusing to give leave to the applicant to appeal out of time against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Woodcock given on 4 August 2017.

2.On 18 September 2019, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion seeking leave to appeal against the said judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the notice of motion, the applicant stated that she was not familiar with the legal procedure in Hong Kong, that she should be given a chance to lodge an appeal in respect of her case, and that the Torture Claims Appeal Board disregarded the dangerous situation in her country.

3.The applicant also lodged a written submission to support her application on 3 October 2019.   

4.We do not find any valid grounds of appeal in the notice of motion.  As held at [21] – [22] of the judgment, the delay of the applicant in bringing the appeal was both substantial and inexcusable. Further, as explained at [23] – [26], the intended appeal has no prospect of success.  The applicant fails to demonstrate any reasonably arguable basis to contend that the Court was wrong in these respects. 

5.In her written submission, the applicant repeated the same submission that she had previously lodged for leave to appeal out of time, which the Court had duly considered and rejected.

6.Furthermore, the applicant failed to raise in this application any question of great general or public importance.  The statutory thresholds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal under section 22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484) are not met.  Nor do we see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under the section. 

7.For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to the applicant to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  The notice of motion is therefore dismissed.

The applicant acting in person