RE SZETO CYNTHIA

CACV 233/2011

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF APPEAL

CIVIL APPEAL NO 233 OF 2011

(ON APPEAL FROM HCAL NO 77 OF 2011)

_______________________

SZETO CYNTHIA Applicant

______________________

Before: Hon Cheung, Yuen and Kwan JJA in Court

Date of Hearing: 27 March 2012

Date of Judgment: 10 April 2012

_______________________

J U D G M E N T

_______________________

Hon Kwan JA (giving the Judgment of the Court):

1. On 12 January 2012, this court (Cheung and Kwan JJA) dismissed the appeal of Ms Cynthia Szeto against the refusal of leave of MacraeJ to apply for judicial review. The subject decision of her intended application for judicial review was made by the Commissioneron Interception of Communications and Surveillance. The relevant background and our reasons for dismissing her appeal appeared inour judgment, which will not be repeated here.

2. Ms Szeto now seeks leave by a Notice of Motion filed on 30 January 2012 to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal. No grounds uponwhich leave to appeal is sought were set out in the Notice of Motion.

3. On 13 March 2012, she filed an affidavit to exhibit a bundle of documents of 32 pages headed “Appeal Bundle Supplement Materialsof 12 March 2012”, which included a six-page letter from her to the Chief Judge of the High Court dated 23 January 2012. In thatletter, she claimed that her case is of “paramount public interest” and that she has “strong and solid” arguments to attackthe decision of the Commissioner. She also set out in that letter why she contended the judgment of this court was wrong.

4. Ms Szeto made oral submissions to us at the hearing on 27 March 2012, reiterating the points made in her aforesaid letter. She submittedthere are loopholes in the Interception of Communications and Surveillance Ordinance, Cap 589 and claimed that she should be given leave to apply for judicial review in order to “revamp” the Ordinance.

5. For the reasons given in our judgment on 12 January 2012, Ms Szeto’s intended application for judicial review clearly does notmeet the threshold test in Po Fun Chan v Winnie Cheung (2007) 10 HKCFAR 676. As her intended appeal against the judgment of this court is entirely without merit, we decline to exercise our discretion to grantleave to appeal to the Court of Final Appeal pursuant to section 22(1)(b) of the Hong Kong Court of Final Appeal Ordinance, Cap 484.

6. We dismiss the application for leave to appeal with no order as to costs.

(Peter Cheung)
Justice of Appeal
(Maria Yuen)
Justice of Appeal
(Susan Kwan)
Justice of Appeal

The Applicant (Appellant), acting in person