HKSAR v. Lee Man Biu

Read the full judgment text of HCCC 200/2015 on BabelCite. This High Court CFI judgment was delivered on 21 April 2016.

Cites 1 case

Case No.HCCC 200/2015
Court
High Court CFI
Date21 Apr 2016
Judge
Case Document
100%Judiciary

HCCC 200/2015

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 200 OF 2015

-----------------

  HKSAR  
  v  
  LEE Man-biu  

------------------

Before: Hon Toh J
Date: 21 April 2016 at 11.14 am
Present: Mr Steven Kwan, on fiat, for HKSAR
Mr Oliver Davies, leading Ms Joyce Wu and Ms Annie Bu,
instructed by Wong & Co, for the accused
Offence: (1) & (2) Indecent assault on another person (猥褻侵犯另一人)
(3) Rape (強姦)

---------------------------------

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

---------------------------------

COURT: The defendant has just been convicted by a jury, after trial, of the 2nd count of indecent assault. This indecent assault happened on the 13th day of October at the defendant’s premises. The whole act was actually videoed on the victim’s mobile phone and produced as an exhibit.

As one can see, the act itself was a quick squeezing of the victim’s breasts after the defendant had pulled her up from a sitting position and so, therefore, some force was applied although I would not say great force was applied and it was an indecent assault over the top of the victim’s clothing. I accept what Mr Davies has submitted, that it was not the most serious of its kind.

The defendant is aged 64 and he has a clear record. However, this is a case, clearly, where there was a breach of trust as he was the victim’s employer. This was an aggravating factor accepted by the Court of Appeal in the case of HKSAR v Chan Tung Hing, Band [2010] 3 HKC 304. Although that was a case of rape and this is only indecent assault, however, the aggravating factor still applies.

Further, the victim was in a vulnerable position because not only is she financially dependent on the employer, she is also far from home and her immediate family.

So looking at the factual background, I would consider that a sentence of 3 months’ imprisonment would be appropriate after trial. However, I do take into account the fact that the defendant is aged 65 and has a clear record so I will reduce it to 2½ months’ imprisonment.

The defendant is sentenced to 2½ months’ imprisonment.