HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal2002

HKSAR v. SINGH KULDIP

Related cases with same parties

  • CAAR11/1997HKSAR v. YIP CHI TUNG
  • CAAR1/1998HKSAR v. LING VERONICA
  • CAAR12/1996HKSAR v. WONG KWONG YICK
  • CAAR6/1998HKSAR v. LAU SHIU KONG AND ANOTHER
  • CAAR6/2012HKSAR v. LEUNG KWOK CHI
  • CAAR9/2001HKSAR v. WONG TO LEUNG
  • CACC100/1997HKSAR v. YU HON CHUN
  • CACC100/1999HKSAR v. LAM CHI KIN
  • CACC100/2000HKSAR v. SHING KUEN KIN
  • CACC100/2001HKSAR v. OU YANG MING CHYUAN
  • CACC100/2002HKSAR v. CHAN LAI SING AND ANOTHER
  • CACC100/2003HKSAR v. CHENG CHONG SHING
  • CACC100/2022HKSAR v. LIMBU PRASHANT
  • CACC101/1997HKSAR v. YIU KENNETH LIK KIN
  • CACC101/2001HKSAR v. LEUNG KWAI PING
  • CACC101/2021HKSAR v. WONG CHI FUNG AND ANOTHER
  • CACC10/1997HKSAR v. MAN KAM SHING
  • CACC10/1998HKSAR v. CHAN CHUN TAK
  • CACC10/2001HKSAR v. TAM KWAI KEUNG AND ANOTHER
  • CACC10/2002HKSAR v. WONG WAN SHAN
35657-EN-2002-06-14

HKSAR v. SINGH KULDIP

HTML content

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
HKSARRespondent
AND
SINGH KULDIPAppellant

____________

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.