Re Afroz Mst Sumi and Another

CAMP 153/2023, [2024] HKCA 574

On appeal from [2023] HKCFI 2182

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 153 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 2279 OF 2018)

_____________________

_____________________

___________________

J U D G M E N T

___________________

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

1.On 30 May 2024, this court handed down our judgment ([2024] HKCA 501) dismissing the 1^st and 2^nd applicants’ application to extend time to appeal the decision of Deputy High Court Judge To given on 20 July 2022 refusing their application for leave to apply for judicial review.

2.On the same day, the applicants filed a Notice of Motion to apply for leave to appeal this court’s judgment to the Court of Final Appeal. The 1^st applicant has lodged a written submission on behalf of herself and the 2^nd applicant to support the 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 applicants’ claims 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 stated that the applicants did not get justice and they want to go to the Court of Final Appeal.

7.The written submission stated that: (1) the 1^st applicant cannot go back to her country with the 2^nd applicant because she is not married to the 2^nd applicant’s father and extra-marital cohabitation is a serious crime in the Muslim religion; (2) under Islamic law, both the 1^st applicant and the 2^nd applicant’s father would be killed; and (3) in Bangladesh where the society practises Muslim faith, they have no means of livelihood and the 2^nd applicant cannot go to school or receive medical treatment.

8.We are of the view that what was put forward by the applicants do not constitute viable grounds for giving leave to appeal. Importantly, no question of great general or public importance has been identified as required by section 22(1)(b) of the Ordinance. Further, the applicants’ case and the basis of their non-refoulement claims before the Director of Immigration, the Torture Claims Appeal Board, and the Judge are completely different from what is now being asserted in the written submission: see [6], [7], [10], [11], [14] and [27] to [29] of our judgment. The applicants cannot be permitted to put forward a new case at this late stage of the proceedings. There is also no relevant evidence in the case to support the factual assertions made in the written submission.

9.We also do not see any basis for the “or otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

10.Accordingly, we dismiss the Notice of Motion.

The 1^st and 2^nd applicants, unrepresented, acted in person