Re Susilowati

CACV 445/2019

[2022] HKCA 215

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 445 OF 2019

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 1630/2018)

-----------------------------------

-----------------------------------

___________________

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 28 May 2020 ([2020] HKCA 378) (“Judgment”), dismissing the applicant’s appeal from the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 16 September 2019 ([2019] HKCFI 2219) refusing her leave to apply for judicial review of the decisions made by the Torture Claims Appeal Board (“Board”) on 5 May 2017 and 9 August 2018 concerning her non-refoulement claim (“NRF 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.By the notice of motion dated 8 June 2020 and written submission dated 22 June 2020, the applicant merely reiterated what had already been said in her notice of appeal dated 23 September 2019 and skeleton submission dated 21 January 2020, which we have already summarised and set out in [19] and [20] of the Judgment and shall not repeat here.

5.We shall, however, mention the applicant’s allegation in paragraph 2 of the notice of motion that we have not addressed the issues raised in paragraphs 4 to 10 of her 21 January 2020 skeleton submission.

Discussion

6.In our view, the applicant has not raised any issue for determination by the CFA, whether of great, general or public importance or otherwise.

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

8.The applicant’s assertion that we have not dealt with paragraphs 4 to 10 of her 21 January 2020 skeleton submission is plainly not true. We have summarised such submission, which primarily boiled down to a complaint of lack of language and legal assistance, in [20] of the Judgment. It can be seen that the effect of the submission coincided with that of grounds of appeal 3, 4 and 6 as listed in [19] of the Judgment. We have considered and rejected those 3 grounds in [26] to [28]. It is the applicant who has failed to engage the reasons we have given for rejecting her submission regarding language and legal assistance.

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