Re Rai Ranjana

CAMP 60/2022, [2023] HKCA 1134

On Appeal From [2020] HKCFI 2386

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO 60 OF 2022

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 785 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 10 February 2023 ([2023] HKCA 128) dismissing the applicant’s application to extend time to appeal against an order of DHCJ C P Pang given on 28 September 2020 in which he refused to grant an extension of time for the applicant to seek 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 20 April 2023, the applicant filed a Notice of Motion for leave to appeal against 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 deadline for filing the Notice of Motion expired on 10 March 2023.

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.The Registrar of Civil Appeals directed the applicant to lodge her written submissions on or before 4 May 2023. The applicant failed to lodge any written submissions as directed. As it is appropriate to do so, the Notice of Motion is determined on paper without an oral hearing.

6.In the present case, the applicant was late by nearly 6 weeks, which is substantial. She did not provide any explanation for the delay in her supporting affidavit.

7.Moreover, she has not shown any merits in this intended application for leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. In her Notice of Motion, she only stated that she did not get justice and wants to go to the Court of Final Appeal to get justice.

8.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.

9.The applicant has not identified any errors in the judgment of this court, or any question of great general or public importance which ought to be submitted to the Court of Final Appeal for decision as required by section 22(1)(b) of the HKCFAO.

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

11.By reason of the above, the Notice of Motion filed on 20 April 2023 is dismissed.

The applicant, unrepresented, acting in person