Re Rani Shantona

CACV 333/2020

[2021] HKCA 541

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 333 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1640/2019)

________________________

________________________

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

Date of Judgment:  26 April 2021

________________________

J U D G M E N T

_______________________

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

1.On 24 March 2021, 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 23 March 2021. In that judgment the Court dismissed the Applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge KW Lung on 30 July 2020 by which he dismissed 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 asserted that actual life was different from the situation depicted in COI and evidence of violence towards minority had been ignored.  She claimed that her case had not been fairly assessed.  She also referred to the heightened prevalence and risk of infection and death from COVID 19 in Bangladesh.

4.The Applicant lodged her written submissions on 7 April 2021.  There are paragraphs in those submissions, in particular pages 3 to 6, which refer to matters that is not part of her claim or evidence: her being subject to detention by “Delaware”, rejection of a “key” piece of evidence due to prevalence of unauthentic documents from Bangladesh as a ground of appeal, “certificate” of she being hit by her creditor, and she being a low-level party supporter. 

5.To the extent that the Applicant’s submissions relate to her claim, they reiterate her fear in the event of refoulement, refer to general legal arguments without particulars, and reiterate her previous argument before this Court regarding lack of legal and language assistance.

6.The Applicant’s submissions fail to engage with the reasons given in the judgment of 23 March 2021 for dismissing her appeal.  Nor do they raise any discernible or arguable ground for disturbing that judgment.

7.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 accordingly.

The applicant acting in person