Amellia v. Torture Claims Appeal Board

CACV 555/2021

[2022] HKCA 788

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO. 555 OF 2021

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL 104 OF 2019)

________________________

_____________________

Before:  Hon Cheung and Chow JJA in Court

Date of Written Submissions:  25 May 2022

Date of Judgment:  15 July 2022

________________

J U D G M E N T

________________

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

1.On 4 May 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s appeal against the order of Deputy High Court Judge Bruno Chan dated 2 December 2021 refusing to grant leave to the Applicant to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board dated 22 March 2018.

2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 11 May 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. In the Notice of Motion, the following is stated:

“The High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed my leave to apply for judicial review but I wish the Court of Final Appeal will consider my leave to apply for judicial review.”

3.In her written submissions dated 25 May 2022, the Applicant repeated that she could not return to her home country. She also alleged that there were many errors in the judgments of the Court of First Instance and Court of Appeal, but failed to provide any elaboration of her complaint.

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