有關 LE THI HIEN 的事宜
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show any real prospect of success, failed to point to any error in the Court of Appeal's refusal to extend time, did not demonstrate that the appeal raised issues of public or widespread importance under s.22(1)(b), and did not comply with procedural...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] HKCA 683
- Parties
- Applicant: LE THI HIEN; Respondent: Director of Immigration; Respondent: Torture Claims Appeal Board
- Court
- Court of Appeal
- Jurisdiction
- Hong Kong
- Judgment Date
- 1 June 2023
- Case Number
- CAMP473/2022
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal / Leave Application to the Court of Final Appeal Refused by Court of Appeal; Application Determined on Papers
- Outcome
- Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused.
- Legal Topics
- Non Refoulement, Leave to Appeal, Extension of Time, Judicial Review, Appellate Procedure
- Source Language
- ch
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
LE THI HIEN
Applicant
Director of Immigration
Respondent
Torture Claims Appeal Board
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Final Appeal / Leave Application to the Court of Final Appeal Refused by Court of Appeal; Application Determined on Papers
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal should be granted under s.22(1)(b) of the Court of Final Appeal Ordinance
- 2 Whether the extension of time to bring an appeal should have been allowed
- 3 Whether the proposed appeal raises issues of public or widespread importance or other reasons warranting determination by the Court of Final Appeal
Ratio Decidendi
Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show any real prospect of success, failed to point to any error in the Court of Appeal's refusal to extend time, did not demonstrate that the appeal raised issues of public or widespread importance under s.22(1)(b), and did not comply with procedural directions, so the matter did not warrant determination by the Court of Final Appeal.
Court Disposition
Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused.
Orders
- Leave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal refused
- Applicant's notice of motion revoked/struck out
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
1 paragraphs
CAMP 473/2022, [2023] HKCA 683 On Appeal From [2023] HKCA 41 香港特別行政區 高等法院上訴法庭 民事司法管轄權 高等法院雜項案件2022年第473號 (擬上訴的原本案件：高等法院憲法及行政訴訟2019年第1113號) ____________ 申請人 LE THI HIEN ____________ 主審法官 ： 高等法院上訴法庭法官林雲浩 高等法院上訴法庭法官周家明 判案書日期 ： 2023年6 月1日 判 案 書 上訴法庭法官林雲浩頒發上訴法庭判案書： 上訴法庭 (上訴法庭法官林雲浩及上訴法庭法官周家明) 於2023年1月30日作出判決，駁回申請人延展上訴期限的申請。申請人就本庭的判決於2023年3月23日存檔《提出動議通知書》及非宗教式誓詞，申請上訴許可至終審法院。 申請人免遣返聲請的詳情，入境事務處處長及酷刑聲請上訴委員會拒絕其免遣返聲請及駁回其上訴的決定，以及高等法院暫委法官龍劍雲拒絕給予申請人提出司法覆核許可的判決，在本庭的判案書已有述及，本庭在此不再重複。 申請人並沒有遵從民事上訴案司法常務官的書面指示，呈交任何書面陳詞。本庭審閱了相關文件，認為本申請適宜以書面形式處理，毋需舉行聆訊。 分析及裁決 《香港終審法院條例》第 22(1)(b) 條規定，申請人須符合以下情況，才可向終審法院提出上訴： 「 如該上訴是就上訴法庭就任何民事訟案或事項所作的判決而提出的，不論是最終判決或非正審判決，而上訴法庭或終審法院(視屬何情況而定)認為上訴所涉及的問題具有重大廣泛的或關乎公眾的重要性，或因其他理由，以致應交由終審法院裁決，則上訴法庭或終審法院須酌情決定終審法院是否受理該上訴。」 本庭認為，申請人擬提出的上訴沒有任何成功機會。申請人在其《提出動議通知書》中，只是重申他在越南遇到的問題，及提出免遣返保護聲請的原因，但他並沒有提出任何實質的上訴理由，亦沒有指出上訴法庭駁回其延展上訴期限的申請有任何錯誤之處。他亦未能顯示，擬提出的上訴涉及的問題，具有重大廣泛的或關乎公眾的重要性，也沒有其他理由以致應交由終審法院裁決。 基於上述理由，本庭拒絕給予申請人許可上訴至終審法院，並撤銷申請人的《提出動議通知書》。 （林雲浩） （周家明） 高等法院上訴法庭法官 高等法院上訴法庭法官 申請人：無律師代表。