Re Darsah Subarkah Darta Amen

CAMP 134/2022

[2023] HKCA 769

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 134 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 230 OF 2019)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 20 April 2023, this court handed down a judgment ([2023] HKCA 538) dismissing the applicant’s appeal against the decision of Deputy High Court Judge Lung given on 28 January 2022 dismissing her application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On the same day, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion 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 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 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, 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.The Notice of Motion did not provide any ground in support of the intended appeal. It only stated that the applicant did not get justice and she wanted to go to the Court of Final Appeal. The written submission gave an outline of the applicant’s claim, and asserted that she had her life is under threat, she has a loan dispute and her enemy was very powerful. It reiterated that the applicant wanted to get leave to go to the Court of Final Appeal and to speak to the Court of Final Appeal both on her own behalf and also on behalf of other asylum seekers.

7.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.