Re Kartini

CACV 240/2019

[2020] HKCA 122

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 240 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1911/2018)

__________________________

__________________________

________________________

JUDGMENT

________________________

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

1.On 9 September 2019, the Court (Lam VP and Bharwaney J) handed down a judgment ([2019] HKCA 1022) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung (“the Judge”) dated 23 May 2019 ([2019] HKCFI 1281). In the latter decision, the Judge refused leave for the applicant to apply for judicial review.

2.By a notice of motion filed on 20 September 2019, the applicant sought leave to appeal against the Court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  It was stated in the notice of motion that:

“ 1) There is some error in law in my decision. The decision maker just relied on COL information any my previous facts, which were favour on rejecting my claim.

2) Actual life occur different situation then mentioned COL information. Officer and courts prefers to ignore the overwhelming of the evidence of the violence towards minorities searching for unrealistic silver lining.

3) The learned Judges were wrong as a matter of law for not having applied the principle of irrationality to the decision made by the Director of Immigration on the 9 September 2019 refusing my application for Judicial Review.

4) Procedural unfairness.

5) The Judge did not apply the law properly.” (sic)

3.Notwithstanding that she was directed to do so, the applicant failed to lodge any written submission in support of this application.

4.The matters set out in the notice of motion cannot constitute valid grounds of appeal.  No allegation relating to the decision-makers’ handling of the COI materials had been raised in the proceedings below or in the substantive appeal.  Paragraphs 1 and 2 of the notice of motion attempted to raise new grounds without any particulars on the COI in question and without evidence to support them.  As explained in Re Mudannayakalage Chaminda Pushpa Kumara [2018] HKCA 824 at [9] and Re Zaman Muhammad [2018] HKCA 859 at [7], it is not the practice of this Court to grant leave to appeal on new points that were not canvassed at the substantive appeal before us; nor would leave be granted on new fact-sensitive points not argued at the court below. 

5.The remaining paragraphs are general assertions and the applicant did not put forward any matters of substance to support the same.

6.In our view, the applicant failed to raise any question of great general or public importance, as required under section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484).  Nor can we see any basis to grant leave on the “otherwise” limb.  Accordingly, the statutory thresholds for granting leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal are not met.

7.For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to the applicant to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  We dismiss the notice of motion accordingly.

The applicant acting in person