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.
|
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) ____________
____________ 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.
Representation: Appellant in person. Miss Ada Chan, Government Counsel of the Department of Justice, for the Respondent. |