Namagembe Adella v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CAMP 277/2021

[2022] HKCA 11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 277 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1590 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

Before: Hon G Lam and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Written Submission: 21 December 2021

Date of Judgment: 10 January 2022

____________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

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

1.On 8 November 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s application for an extension of time to appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung (“the Judge”) dated 4 June 2020 refusing to grant her leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office / Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 6 August 2018.

2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 7 December 2021 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:

“I would like to have more hearing about my case as I wrote 9-10 pages in petition expressing my fear at the moment to return [to] my home country Uganda and were backed by links related to dangerous situation in Uganda.”

3.In her written submissions dated 21 December 2021, the Applicant states that she wishes to appeal on three main grounds: (i) she has not been fully represented in the whole legal process, (ii) her worsening health condition has prevented her from preparing for her case, and (iii) she cannot be repatriated to her country of origin due to the aggravated socio-political situation there.

4.Under s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484, an appeal shall lie to the Court of Final Appeal at the discretion of, inter alia, the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Appeal 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.

5.No question of great general or public importance involved in the proposed appeal is identified in the Notice of Motion. We are unable to see any such question being involved in the proposed appeal.  There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “otherwise” limb in s 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance.

6.Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, unrepresented, acted in person