Re Endah Retnosari

CAMP 76/2023, [2024] HKCA 920

On intended appeal from [2022] HKCFI 2143

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

MISCELLANEOUS PROCEEDINGS NO. 76 OF 2023

(ON AN INTENDED APPEAL FROM HCAL NO. 660 of 2019)

__________________________

__________________________

________________

JUDGMENT

________________

Hon Chu VP giving the Judgment of the Court:

1.On 30 July 2024, this Court handed down our judgment ([2024] HKCA 642) refusing to extend the time for the applicant to appeal the decision of Deputy High Court Judge K W Lung given on 15 July 2022 which refused to give her leave to apply for judicial review.     

2.On 5 August 2024, the applicant filed a notice of motion to apply for leave to appeal against our judgment to the Court of Final Appeal.  She has also put in a written submission to support the application.

3.Having considered the applicant’s notice of motion and 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 has 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 seeks leave to appeal on the ground that the Director of Immigration and the Torture Claim Appeals Board relied totally on web news which were not officially recognised, and the case was not determined fairly.  

7.The applicant’s written submission made the following points:

(1)  The applicant was not provided with proper legal and language assistance.

(2)  The applicant was deprived of the right to make full grounds for appeal.  The determination was not translated or read back to her and she had to submit everything in English.

(3)  The lack of assistance to the applicant is an error of law or procedures, a procedural unfairness and a failure to adhere to the high standard of fairness.

(4)  The authorities should look into the procedural unfairness in the case and to put aside the policy of disposing of non-refoulement claims as quickly as possible.  

(5)  There should be a mechanism to enable unrepresented litigants to understand more about their claim.

8.We are of the view that the matters set out in the notice of motion and written submission do not afford any basis for granting leave to appeal.  Importantly, they all concern the applicant’s claim and personal circumstances, and do not show that the intended appeal involves any question of great general or public importance.  Further, for the reasons we gave at [18] of our judgment, the arguments put forward are not reasonably arguable.  We also do not see any basis for granting leave on the “otherwise” limb under section 22(1)(b).

9.As the statutory requirements for giving leave to appeal are not met, we dismiss the notice of motion.

The applicant, unrepresented, acted in person.