Jailing a pilot for supermarket shopping at the start of his quarantine was clearly an excessive sentence that overlooked the impact on his career, according to a Hong Kong judge who replaced the 10-day term with a HK$15,000 fine (US$1,920).

Madam Justice Susana D’Almada Remedios on Tuesday gave a High Court judgment explaining why she had found the imprisonment “wrong in principle” and allowed Simon Hurek’s appeal against the sentence he was handed in January.

The court previously heard the 40-year-old had entered the city from Britain via Hong Kong International Airport at 7.48am on March 25 last year.

He was issued a quarantine order under Covid-19 regulations requiring him to isolate at his home in Sai Ying Pun until 11.59pm on April 7, 2020.

But an employee of U Select supermarket found him shopping at 10.30am on the same day as his arrival in the city while wearing a quarantine wristband and a face mask, and reported him to police.

Hurek told officers that he had gone to the supermarket to buy daily necessities.

He was convicted on pleading guilty to one count of leaving a place of quarantine without the permission of an authorised officer, an offence punishable by six months in prison and a HK$25,000 fine.

In January, Hurek was sentenced to 10 days in jail by Magistrate Peter Yu Chun-cheung.

On appeal in June, defence counsel Christopher Grounds submitted that a fine was appropriate in the case, but accepted alternatives such as community service and a suspended sentence.

But acting senior assistant director of public prosecutions Derek Lau Tak-wai countered that the custodial term was entirely justified because a deterrent sentence was needed to send a clear message that such orders were not to be taken lightly.

In a nine-page ruling, the judge agreed with the prosecution that it was of paramount importance to ensure public health and not put the community at risk.

But she also sided with the defence in finding that the case “was not anywhere near a scenario which warranted an immediate sentence of imprisonment”.

D’Almada Remedios said the magistrate had failed to take into account that Hurek’s offence was committed at the outset of the quarantine order for the purpose of buying necessities, which was not as serious as “cavorting in social entertainment with others in the community” in the middle of the isolation period.

She also noted that the present breach was committed at a time when social-distancing rules were “clearly not as strict” as the government had not mandated the mode of transport to nor the place of quarantine, so Hurek was effectively free to travel and mix with the public while on his way home from the airport.

She further observed that the magistrate had failed to take into account the repercussions of imprisonment on Hurek, when “due consideration was needed in these circumstances” as even a short term “may spell disaster for him”.

Hurek, she said, could have his pilot licence suspended or lose the “career which he has had for his whole life”.

“At the age of 40 he may have to look for a new career,” she continued.

Balancing the circumstances, the judge concluded that Hurek’s offence fell on the lower end of the scale, and replaced his jail term with a fine to be paid within 14 days.