Re Darsini

CAMP 449/2021

[2022] HKCA 1035

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 449 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2929 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

Before :  Hon Cheung and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Decision :  13 July 2022

____________________

D E C I S I O N

____________________

Hon Cheung JA (giving the Decision of the Court) :

1.On 26 January 2022, this Court handed down judgment ([2022] HKCA 151) dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal an order of Judge P Li given on 12 November 2020 who refused her application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of her non‑refoulement claim.

2.On 17 February 2022, the applicant filed a notice of motion applying for leave to appeal this Court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  The applicant has also lodged a written submission on 3 March 2022.

3.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and written submission, we see no reason to depart from the usual practice of determining applications for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal on paper without an oral hearing.  We have, therefore, proceeded to determine the applicant’s application on the basis of the documents in the case.

4.The background to this case and the applicant’s claim have been set out at [6] in our judgment.  We shall not repeat them here.

5.Section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (‘HKCFAO’) (Cap. 484) provides that leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal may be granted 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 Court of Final Appeal for decision.

6.In the grounds of appeal stated in the notice of motion, the applicant simply stated that she wishes to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal as she was rejected by the previous authorities.  The applicant has not provided any ground in support of her application for leave to appeal.

7.As for the applicant’s written submissions, she again repeated what was stated in the notice of motion and her situation in Indonesia.  The applicant also stated she was not satisfied with the decision of the previous authorities. 

8.We are of the view that the grounds and arguments put forward by the applicant do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal.  Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

9.We further do not see any basis for the ‘or otherwise’ limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, accordingly, we dismiss the notice of motion dated 17 February 2022.

Applicant, unrepresented, acting in person