HK CourtDB
HomeDirectoryMCP
Hong Kong CourtDB
Back to directory
Magistracy Appeal2020

HKSAR v. ALE, BAL CHANDRA

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
[2020] HKCFI 979-EN-2020-05-26

HKSAR v. ALE, BAL CHANDRA

HTML content

HCMA 70/2020

[2020] HKCFI 979

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO 70 OF 2020

(ON APPEAL FROM STCC 183/2020)

________________________

BETWEEN

 HKSARRespondent
 and 
 ALE, BAL CHANDRAAppellant

________________________

Before: Hon Toh J in Court
Date of Hearing: 26 May 2020
Date of Judgment: 26 May 2020

________________________

J U D G M E N T

________________________

1.  The appellant had been charged with breach of condition of stay and upon his plea of guilty, he was sentenced to 9 months’ imprisonment. The appellant was seemingly dissatisfied with the conviction and appeals against his conviction.

2.  As Mr Hui has pointed out, the appellant was properly represented in the magistrate’s court by a duty lawyer and also the plea and facts were read to him through an interpreter, so none of the circumstances rendering his plea a nullity existed and the appellant himself had merely given the court the reason for his appeal was that he wanted his liberty, that is not a reason for changing his plea and so this appeal is dismissed.

 (E Toh)
 Judge of the Court of First Instance
High Court

Mr Matthew Hui PP, of the Department of Justice, for the respondent

The appellant appeared in person