Siti Sokipah v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

CACV 269/2021

[2022] HKCA 717

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 269 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 818 OF 2019)

_____________________

_____________________

Before:  Hon Chow JA and S T Poon J in Court

Date of Written Submission:  5 January 2022

Date of Judgment:  25 May 2022

_________________

J U D G M E N T

_________________

Hon S T Poon J (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1.On 1 November 2021, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order made by Deputy High Court Judge To on 7 May 2021 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office/Torture Claims Appeal Board (“the Board”) dated 14 March 2019.

2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 22 December 2021 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the 4-page Notice of Motion, the Applicant stated that she did not lodge the skeleton as she was unaware with the legal proceedings and could not understand the judgment. The following is stated:

“The Judges have erred in determining that the Judge had not failed to appreciate the significance of my non-refoulement claim. The lack of assistance provided to me is an error of law or procedure, or evidence of procedural unfairness, or failure to adhere to a high standard of fairness. This is because non-refoulement claims are life and limb cases and should be assessed with caution, taking into account my vulnerability and disadvantage.”

3.On 5 January 2022, the Applicant filed her written submission.

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 or the written submission. 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, appeared in person.