Fitri Kristiana v. Torture Claims Appeal Board/ Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office

CAMP 534/2021

[2022] HKCA 1067

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 534 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 2732 OF 2018)

____________________

____________________

____________________

JUDGMENT

____________________

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

1.On 30 May 2022, this Court gave its judgment (“the CA Judgment”) dismissing the Applicant’s summons for “leave to appeal” out of time against the order of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung dated 9 November 2021 refusing to grant the Applicant an extension of time to appeal against the Judge’s earlier order dated 28 June 2021 refusing leave to apply for judicial review of the decision of the Torture Claims Appeal Board / Non-refoulement Claims Petition Office dated 12 April 2018.

2.The Applicant now applies by Notice of Motion dated 14 June 2022 for leave to appeal the CA Judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  In the Notice of Motion, the Applicant states that she would like to reject and review the decision made by the court, and further that the court has disregarded her dangerous situation.  In her written submissions dated 28 June 2022, the Applicant repeats her fear of being killed by a loan shark should she be returned to Indonesia, and alleges that the current legal and police system in Indonesia would not be able to protect her. She also alleges that the TCAB failed to look into her case in the Indonesian context.  The Applicant has not, in either the Notice of Motion or written submissions, pointed to any alleged specific error in the CA Judgment.

3.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 the Court of Final Appeal or the Court of Appeal in any civil cause or matter if, in the opinion of the Court of Final Appeal or the Court of Appeal, as the case may be, 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.

4.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.

5.Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal is refused and the Notice of Motion is dismissed.

The Applicant, acting in person