Re Muji Royatin Bt Rohmat Sapadi

CAMP 174/2021

[2023] HKCA 207

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 174 OF 2021

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 1653 OF 2018)

________________________

________________________

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

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

1.This court handed down judgment on 27 May 2022 ([2022] HKCA 734)  dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal against an order of Campbell-Moffat J given on 26 June 2020 in which she refused the applicant’s application for leave to apply for judicial review in respect of her non-refoulement claim.

2.The facts and issues in the application before this court, as well as the court’s reasons for dismissing it, are set out in our judgment and will not be repeated here.

3.On 14 July 2022, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. However, it was out of time, as section 24(2)  of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance (“HKCFAO”)  (Cap. 484)  stipulates that the deadline for filing an appeal from a judgment of the Court of Appeal is 28 days from the date of the judgment to be appealed from.  The last day for filing the Notice of Motion expired on 24 June 2022. 

4.However, under sections 24(5)  and 24(6)  of the HKCFAO, the Court of Appeal has a discretion to extend the appeal period even though the application for extension is not made until after the expiration of that period.  In the exercise of our discretion whether or not to extend the appeal period, we should consider the length of the delay, the applicant’s reasons for the delay, the merits of the intended appeal, and whether any prejudice would be suffered by the other party. 

5.In the present case, the applicant was late by almost 3 weeks which is substantial.  She apologised for the delay in her supporting affirmation but did not provide any explanation for it.   

6.Moreover, the applicant has not shown any merits in this intended application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal.  She stated only the following in the Notice of Motion:

“Director of Immigration and Torture Claims Appeal Board dismissed my non refoulement claim. I was not satisfied so I came to the High Court for leave to appeal for judicial review. The High Court and the Court of Appeal dismissed my apply (sic). I want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.”

7.In compliance with the directions of the Registrar of Civil Appeals given on 14 July 2022, the applicant lodged her written submissions on 28 July 2022.  This Notice of Motion is determined on paper without an oral hearing, which we consider appropriate.

8.In her written submissions, she reiterated that she came to Hong Kong to save her life and that she will face risk of loss of life if she returns to her home country as her enemy is powerful and may kill her at any time upon her return.  However, the Director of Immigration, the Torture Claims Appeal Board and the court rejected her claim, and she wants to go to the Court of Final Appeal to pursue her claim.

9.Section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO 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.

10.Having regard to the judgment of this court, the applicant’s intended appeal has no merit at all. No question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b)  of the HKCFAO.    

11.Nor do we see any basis for granting leave under the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

12.By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion filed on 14 July 2022 is dismissed.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person