Mirna Lestari v. Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non Refoulement Claims Petition Office
Read the full judgment text of CAMP 533/2021 on BabelCite. This Court of Appeal judgment was delivered on 10 June 2022.
1. On 12 May 2022, 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 C P Pang dated 23 December 2020 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 30 July 2018.
Cited by 1 case
|
CAMP 533/2021 [2022] HKCA 798 IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION COURT OF APPEAL MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 533 OF 2021 (ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1531 OF 2018) ________________________
________________________
________________________ JUDGMENT ________________________ Hon Chow JA (giving the Judgment of the Court): 1.On 12 May 2022, 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 C P Pang dated 23 December 2020 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 30 July 2018. 2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 16 May 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:
3.The Applicant has failed to file any written submissions in support of the application contrary to the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals dated 16 May 2022. 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. We are satisfied that the intended appeal has no merits and no reasonable prospect of success. There is also no basis to grant leave to appeal on the “or 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, acting in person |
Other judgments that cite this case
Further hearings and rulings under CAMP 533/2021