Re Martin Rebecca Mokyat

CACV 216/2021

[2021] HKCA 2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 216 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1233 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before:  Hon Cheung JA and Lisa Wong J in Court

Date of Judgment:  31 December 2021

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

Hon Lisa Wong J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

Application

1.Before the court is an application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal (“CFA”)  against this court’s judgment dated 17 September 2021 ([2021] HKCA 1345)  (“Judgment”), dismissing the applicant’s appeal from the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To dated 23 April 2021 ([2021] HKCFI 1130)  refusing her leave to apply for judicial review of the decision dated 21 June 2018 of the Torture Claims Appeal Board concerning her non-refoulement claim.

Paper disposal appropriate

2.Pursuant to the direction of the Registrar of Civil Appeals (“Registrar”), unless this court otherwise directs, the notice of motion shall be determined on paper without an oral hearing.  Having considered the material available to us, we agree with the Registrar that a paper disposal is appropriate in this case.

Statutory threshold for leave to appeal to the CFA

3.Under s 22(1)(b)  of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (Cap 484), an appeal shall lie to the CFA at the discretion of the Court of Appeal (“CA”)  or the CFA from any civil judgment of the CA 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.

Applicant’s contentions in support of leave to appeal to CFA

4.In seeking leave to appeal to the CFA, the applicant asserted in the notice of motion filed on 5 October 2021 as follows (sic):

“I would like to reject and review the decision made by the court and Torture Claims appeal Board. They disregard my dangerous situation should I return to my home country.”

5.In breach of Practice Direction 2.1 and paragraph 1 of the directions given by the Registrar of Civil Appeals (“Registrar”)  on 19 October 2021, the applicant failed to lodge any written submission in support of the notice of motion, whether as directed or at all.

Discussion

6.There is no attempt whatsoever by the applicant to engage the reasons we have given in the Judgment.

7.He has plainly not raised any issue for determination by the CFA, whether of great, general or public importance or otherwise. 

8.Nor do we see any scope to grant leave under the “or otherwise” limb.  

9.As neither of the statutory criteria under s 22(1)(b)  for leave to appeal to the CFA is met, we dismiss the notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person