Re Poinem

CACV 48/2020

[2021] HKCA 28

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 48 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1634/2018)

________________________

________________________

Before: Hon Lam VP, Chu and Pang JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions: 23 November 2020

Date of Judgment: 7 January 2021

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 12 November 2020, the Applicant filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal against this Court’s judgment of 12 November 2020. In that judgment we dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung (“the Judge”) on 23 January 2020 dismissing her application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484 provides that an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”) at the discretion of this Court or the CFA 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 CFA for decision.

3.In her Notice of Motion for leave to appeal to the CFA, the Applicant did not raise any grounds in support of her application. 

4.Pursuant to the Court’s directions of 16 November 2020, the Applicant lodged her written submissions in support on 23 November 2020.  In those submissions, she reiterated her allegations, previously made to this Court, that her ex-husband would kill her if she were to return to Indonesia, and that her same-sex relationship is opposed by her family and prohibited in Islam.

5.We had already dealt with those allegations in our judgment of 12 November 2020. As we pointed out in that judgment, the Applicant had not raised any grounds to point to any error by the Judge below, nor were there any public law grounds to reverse the Torture Claims Appeal Board decision.  It was before this Court that the Applicant raised for the first time the issue of her same-sex relationship; she had not done so before the Judge or the Torture Claims Appeal Board. 

6.As such, the Applicant has not raised any reasonably arguable ground of appeal on the merit of her claim, or any discernible or arguable ground for disturbing our judgment.  The matters raised in this application do not identify any specific error in our judgment or the judgment of the court below.

7.In any event, in the circumstances, we do not consider that there is any question of great general or public importance or which otherwise ought to be submitted to the CFA for determination.

8.For these reasons, we refuse to grant leave to appeal to the CFA, and dismiss the Applicant’s Notice of Motion.

The applicant acting in person