Re Das Moly Rani

CACV 493/2019

[2020] HKCA 561

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 493 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 932 of 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Alex Lee J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 3 June 2020, this Court (Kwan VP and Alex Lee J) handed down a judgment[1] (“the Judgement”) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung (“the Judge”) given on 10 October 2019[2] refusing her leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) concerning her non-refoulement protection claim.  

2.The facts and issues in the appeal as well as this court’s reasons for dismissing it are set out in the Judgment.  We shall not repeat them here.

3.By a Notice of Motion filed on 15 June 2020, the applicant applies for leave to appeal against the Judgement to the Court of Final Appeal.  Despite the direction given by Registrar of Civil Appeals, Master Ho, given on 18 June 2020, the applicant has failed to lodge any written submission in support of her application. 

4.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing. We have therefore proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of her Notice of Motion.  

5.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.

6.The Notice of Motion states:

“On 3 June 2020 the Court of Appeal Judges dismissed my leave to apply for judicial review. I do not agree with his (sic) decision. But I have no way to do. So I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.”

7.As can be seen above, the applicant, apart from saying that she disagrees with our judgment, has not spelled out how this court was wrong in law or had failed to apply the law properly. Also the applicant has not identified any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b). 

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

9.For the above reasons, the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met. Accordingly, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.