Re Khatun Mst Mukti

CAMP 260/2021

[2021] HKCA 1757

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 260 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1188 OF 2018)

_____________________

_____________________

Before: Hon Cheung and Chu JJA in Court

Date of Judgment: 26 November 2021

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 7 October 2021, this court handed down judgment ([2021] HKCA 1465) dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal an order of Deputy High Court Judge Lung given on 1 March 2021 refusing to extend the time for her to apply for judicial review in respect of her non‑refoulement claim.

2.On 11 October 2021, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion applying for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has also lodged a written submission on 18 October 2021.

3.Having considered the applicant’s Notice of Motion and written submission, 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 the documents in the case.

4.The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that 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 stated that as the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review and her appeal to the Court of Appeal were dismissed, she wants to go to the Court of Final Appeal to get justice. 

7.In the written submission, the applicant stated that she has political problem in her country as her enemy is the current ruling party, and the chief of the present government wants to kill her so as to continue her rule.  Other workers of the applicant’s party had been killed, and the applicant was lucky to have fled to Hong Kong.  The applicant further stated that the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claims Appeal Board were wrong in rejecting her claim, hence she wants to go to the Court of Final Appeal to get justice.

8.What have been put forward by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal.  Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.  Further, as pointed out in [8] and [17] of our judgment, the applicant has provided no ground in support of her application for judicial review and the intended appeal against the judge’s refusal of leave to apply for judicial review.       

9.Nor do we see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we accordingly dismiss the Notice of Motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person