Re Khatun Fatema

CAMP 67/2022

[2022] HKCA 1219

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MIXCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 67 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 1617 OF 2019)

_____________________

_____________________

Before: Hon Chu and M Poon JJA in Court

Date of Judgment: 22 August 2022

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 13 May 2022, this court handed down a judgment ([2022] HKCA 640) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge P Li given on 20 May 2021 refusing to grant her leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On 11 July 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion together with an affirmation to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  She has also put in a written submission to support her application.

3.Having considered the Notice of Motion, he affirmation and the 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 in our judgment.  We will not repeat them.

5.Section 24(2) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap. 484 provides that application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal shall be filed within 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from.  Section 24(5) of the Ordinance further provides that the Court of Appeal may extend the time for the filing of the notice of motion.  In considering whether to extend the time, we will have regard to (i) the length of the delay; (ii) the reasons for the delay; (iii) the merits of the intended application; and (iv) the prejudice to the other parties if time was extended.  

6.The applicant’s Notice of Motion is late by one month, which is not an insignificant delay.  She has provided no explanation for the delay, other than apologising for being late in her supporting affirmation.

7.As to the merits of the application, section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance 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.

8.The Notice of Motion did not provide any ground in support of the intended appeal.  It only stated that the applicant was not satisfied with the outcome of her applications to the Court, and she wanted to go to the Court of Final Appeal.  The written submission gave an outline of the applicant’s claim, and reiterated that the applicant wanted to get leave to go to the Court of Final Appeal.  It also mentioned that the applicant wanted to speak to the Court of Final Appeal both on her own behalf and also on behalf of other asylum seekers.

9.Neither the Notice of Motion nor the written submission has identified any question of great general or public importance, as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance.  Nor do we see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).  As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, it would be futile to extend the time for the application. Accordingly, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person.