HKSAR v. Singh Kuldip

Read the full judgment text of HCMA 362/2002 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 14 June 2002.

1. This Appellant is an Indian in his early twenties. In February 2001 he was deported from Hong Kong. The deportation order served on him prohibited him from returning to Hong Kong. Nevertheless, he returned to Hong Kong in February this year. As a result, he was charged with breach of deportation order contrary to section 43(1)(a) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115.

Case No.HCMA 362/2002
Court
High Court CFI
Date14 Jun 2002
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCMA000362/2002

HCMA 362/2002

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 362 OF 2002

(ON APPEAL FROM ESCC 980/2002)

____________

BETWEEN
HKSAR Respondent
AND
SINGH KULDIP Appellant

____________

Coram: Hon V. Bokhary J in Court

Date of Hearing: 14 June 2002

Date of Judgment: 14 June 2002

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1.This Appellant is an Indian in his early twenties. In February 2001 he was deported from Hong Kong. The deportation order served on him prohibited him from returning to Hong Kong. Nevertheless, he returned to Hong Kong in February this year. As a result, he was charged with breach of deportation order contrary to section 43(1)(a) of the Immigration Ordinance, Cap. 115.

2.On 1 April this year, he appeared before Mr W. C. Li in the Eastern Magistracy, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to 12 months' imprisonment. He now appeals against sentence.

3.The past cases show that such a sentence is at the lower end of the range for this type of offence after a guilty plea. There is no real mitigation in this case. It is a sad fact that the Appellant is unable to rely on his previous good character. He has urged me to reduce his sentence on humanitarian grounds saying that his wife and son who are in Indonesia and his mother who is in India require his financial support.

4.I do not regard that to be sufficient reason for me to exercise my discretion on humanitarian ground to reduce his sentence. As I have said, the sentence is already on the lower end of the range. There is no ground at all for interference with the sentence in this case. The appeal is therefore dismissed.

(V. Bokhary)
Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Representation:

Appellant in person.

Miss Ada Chan, Government Counsel of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent.