纏訟者可否上訴？？上訴駁回

### 案件基本資料 - 案件名稱：Siti Khotimah v Director of Immigration; Reza Sahin v Director of Immigration - 法院：高等法院上訴法庭 (Court of Appeal) - 法官：潘兆初首席法官、關淑馨副庭長、區慶祥上訴法官 - 判決日期：2022年2月28日 ### 案情摘要 本案涉及兩宗合併上訴，申請人Siti Khotimah (SK) 及 Reza Sahin (RS) 均為重複的「不驅回聲請」 (non-refoulement claim) 申請人。SK是一名印尼國民，因逾期逗留及偽造身份證被捕及定罪。她曾提出不驅回聲請，但被入境事務處處長拒絕，其後上訴至終審法院亦被駁回。她再次提出聲請，但未有提出任何理據，被高等法院原訟法庭法官拒絕司法覆核許可申請，並對她發出限制訴訟令 (restricted proceedings order, RPO)。RS是一名孟加拉國民，非法入境香港。他亦曾提出不驅回聲請，被入境事務處處長拒絕，其後上訴至終審法院亦被駁回。他再次提出聲請，同樣未有提出任何理據，被高等法院原訟法庭法官拒絕司法覆核許可申請，並對他發出限制訴訟令。兩名申請人均未經原訟法庭許可便提出本上訴。 ### 核心法律爭議 本案主要法律爭議有二：第一，原訟法庭法官是否有司法管轄權發出限制令，禁止纏訟者未經許可向上訴法庭提出上訴及/或申請（司法管轄權問題）。第二，如果原訟法庭法官有此權力，本案法官是否適當地行使酌情權，對兩名申請人發出限制訴訟令（酌情權問題）。此外，法庭亦需處理申請人就原訟法庭拒絕司法覆核許可的實質上訴。 ### 判決理由 上訴法庭裁定，原訟法庭法官有固有司法管轄權 (inherent jurisdiction) 發出限制令，禁止纏訟者未經許可向上訴法庭提出上訴。法庭引用《高等法院條例》第27A(2)條，該條文與英國《1981年最高法院法令》第42(4)條相似，允許原訟法庭法官在處理濫用訴訟程序的情況時，對上訴權施加限制。法庭認為，若僅由上訴法庭發出此類限制令，則濫用上訴程序的行為已然發生，故原訟法庭法官應有權在濫用行為發生前加以制止。此舉旨在平衡保障上訴權與防止濫用司法資源之間的關係，確保有理據的上訴不受影響。法庭亦強調，限制令的期限須與濫用行為成比例，並須遵守程序公義，給予訴訟人陳詞機會。 ### 引用案例與條文 本案主要引用了終審法院的 Ng Yat Chi v Max Share Ltd & Another (2005) 8 HKCFAR 1 案，該案確立了法院處理濫用訴訟程序的固有司法管轄權，包括發出「Grepe v Loam order」及「extended Grepe v Loam order」。此外，亦引用了英國上訴法庭的 Bhamjee v Forsdick & Others (No 2) [2004] 1 WLR 88 案，該案支持一審法官有權限制纏訟者上訴。本案亦提及《高等法院條例》第27條及27A條，以及《入境條例》第37ZO條。 ### 裁決與命令 上訴法庭駁回兩名申請人就原訟法庭拒絕司法覆核許可的實質上訴。對於SK，由於原訟法庭法官未給予她陳詞機會，故撤銷對她發出的限制訴訟令，但上訴法庭重新對她發出為期五年的限制令，禁止她未經原訟法庭許可提出與不驅回聲請相關的訴訟或上訴。對於RS，由於他未經許可提出上訴，其上訴被駁回，並調整了對他發出的限制訴訟令條款，使其與本判決的原則一致。兩名申請人均須支付入境事務處處長彌償基準訟費。 ### 判決啟示 本判決明確了高等法院原訟法庭法官有固有司法管轄權，在適當情況下，發出限制令以禁止纏訟者未經許可向上訴法庭提出上訴。這項權力旨在有效遏制濫用司法程序，特別是在不驅回聲請案件中，以保護有限的司法資源。判決強調了程序公義的重要性，即在發出限制令前必須給予訴訟人陳詞機會。此判決對處理纏訟者和濫用司法覆核程序的案件具有重要指導意義。 --- ### 免責聲明 本摘要由人工智能自動生成，內容可能存在錯誤或遺漏，僅供參考，不構成法律意見。如需法律建議，請諮詢合資格律師。### Case Details - Case Name: Siti Khotimah v Director of Immigration; Reza Sahin v Director of Immigration - Court: Court of Appeal - Judge: Hon Poon CJHC, Kwan VP and Au JA - Date of Judgment: 28 February 2022 ### Factual Background This case involves two consolidated appeals by Siti Khotimah (SK) and Reza Sahin (RS), both repeated non-refoulement claimants. SK, an Indonesian national, was arrested and convicted for overstaying and possessing a forged identity card. Her non-refoulement claim was rejected by the Director of Immigration, and subsequent appeals, including to the Court of Final Appeal, were dismissed. She filed a second claim without grounds, which led to the Court of First Instance (CFI) judge refusing leave for judicial review and imposing a restricted proceedings order (RPO). RS, a Bangladeshi national, entered Hong Kong illegally. His non-refoulement claim was also rejected by the Director, and his appeals were dismissed. He filed a subsequent claim, again without grounds, leading to the CFI judge refusing leave for judicial review and imposing an RPO. Both applicants lodged the present appeals without obtaining leave from the CFI. ### Key Legal Issues The core legal questions were twofold: first, whether a CFI judge has jurisdiction to make restrictive orders prohibiting vexatious litigants from lodging appeals and/or making further applications to the Court of Appeal without leave (Jurisdiction Issue). Second, if so, whether the judge appropriately exercised discretion in making the RPOs against the applicants (Discretion Issue). Additionally, the court had to address the applicants' substantive appeals against the refusal of leave for judicial review. ### Ratio Decidendi The Court of Appeal held that a CFI judge possesses inherent jurisdiction to make restrictive orders prohibiting vexatious litigants from appealing to the Court of Appeal without leave. The court referenced section 27A(2) of the High Court Ordinance, which is analogous to section 42(4) of the UK Supreme Court Act 1981, allowing CFI judges to restrict appeal rights in cases of abuse of process. The court reasoned that if only the Court of Appeal could issue such orders, the appellate process would already have been abused. Therefore, CFI judges should have the power to prevent such abuse proactively. This approach balances the right to appeal with the need to prevent abuse of judicial resources, ensuring meritorious appeals are not hindered. The court also emphasized that the duration of such orders must be proportionate and procedural fairness, including notice and opportunity to be heard, must be observed. ### Key Precedents & Statutes The judgment primarily cited Ng Yat Chi v Max Share Ltd & Another (2005) 8 HKCFAR 1, which affirmed the court's inherent jurisdiction to deal with abuse of process, including 'Grepe v Loam orders' and 'extended Grepe v Loam orders'. It also referred to the English Court of Appeal case Bhamjee v Forsdick & Others (No 2) [2004] 1 WLR 88, which supported the power of a first instance judge to restrict vexatious appeals. Sections 27 and 27A of the High Court Ordinance and section 37ZO of the Immigration Ordinance were also relevant. ### Decision & Orders The Court of Appeal dismissed both applicants' substantive appeals against the refusal of leave for judicial review. For SK, the RPO made against her was set aside due to the CFI judge's failure to provide her an opportunity to be heard. However, the Court of Appeal imposed a new five-year restrictive order on her, prohibiting her from commencing any fresh proceedings or appeals related to non-refoulement claims without CFI leave. For RS, his appeal was dismissed because he failed to obtain leave as required by the RPO, and the terms of his RPO were varied to align with the principles set out in the judgment. Both applicants were ordered to pay costs to the Director of Immigration on an indemnity basis. ### Key Takeaways This judgment clarifies that a Court of First Instance judge has inherent jurisdiction to issue restrictive orders, when circumstances warrant, prohibiting vexatious litigants from appealing to the Court of Appeal without leave. This power aims to effectively curb abuse of the judicial process, particularly in non-refoulement claims, to protect finite judicial resources. The decision underscores the importance of procedural fairness, requiring litigants to be given an opportunity to be heard before such orders are made. This ruling provides significant guidance for handling vexatious litigants and cases involving abuse of judicial review procedures. --- ### Disclaimer This summary is AI-generated and may contain errors or omissions. It is for reference only and does not constitute legal advice. Please consult a qualified lawyer for professional legal advice.