HKSAR v. Ng Cheuk Ki
Read the full judgment text of DCCC 276/2022 on BabelCite. This District Court judgment was delivered on 4 September 2023.
1. The defendant (“D”) pleaded guilty to 5 charges of offences: -
Cited by 4 cases · Cites 2 cases
|
DCCC 276/2022 [2023] HKDC 1267 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO 276 OF 2022 ________________________
________________________
________________________ REASONS FOR SENTENCE ________________________ 1.The defendant (“D”) pleaded guilty to 5 charges of offences: -
2.As to the rest of the charges, Charge 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9, all these charges are unlawful sexual intercourse with X, are now ordered to be left on the courts’ file, they cannot be proceeded with without the leave of the court. Summary of facts 3.X was born in August 2007 whilst D was born in May 1995. 4.In June, 2020, X was 12 years old while the D was 25 years old. 5.In June 2020, X got acquainted with the D on a social platform called ‘Discord’. The D knew the age of X who was a Form 2 student. 6.The two of them chatted on Instagram and later became close friends. 7.Between 12 September 2020 and 14 October 2020, X had visited D’s residence to have sexual activities with D on a number of occasions. 8.At the material time, X had just turned 13 years old. Charge 1 (Indecent assault) 9.The first incident happened on 12 September 2020. 10.D took X to his Flat. In D’s room, X removed all her clothes and wore the blindfold given by D. X lied on D’s bed and D touched her all over her body. After that, D tried to have sexual intercourse with X but failed because she said she was in great pain. X then performed oral sex for the D. D did wear a condom at the material time. Charge 2 (Indecent assault) 11.On or about 20 September 2020, X attended the Flat. 12.On D’s bed, D touched X’s breasts over her clothes. X took off all her clothes and performed oral sex for D. D used a sex toy to touch the outside of X’s vagina. D did wear a condom at the material time. Charge 3 (Unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16) 13.On 27 September 2020, On D’s bed, D had sexual intercourse with X without wearing a condom. He ejaculated inside her vagina. After that, D used his hand to touch X all over her body and X performed oral sex on D. Charge 8 (Making child pornography) 14.On 8 October 2020, X attended the Flat to have sexual activities with D. 15.With X’s consent, D used X’s phone to take two photos: -
Charge 10 (Unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16) 16.The last incident happened on 14 October 2020. 17.On D’s bed, X performed oral sex on D and D had sexual intercourse with X. Condom was used by D. Disclosure of the incidents 18.On 17 October 2020, X’s mother saw some contraceptive pills on X’s desk. The pills were bought by D and X had been taking them. 19.After making enquiry with X, X’s mother made a report to the police. Arrest 20.On 17 October 2020, D was arrested for “unlawful sexual intercourse with an underage girl”. House search 21.Upon search of the Flat by the police, a number of sex toys were found with DNA of X and D on them. Criminal record 22.The D has a clear record. Mitigation 23.The D is 28 years of age, single, he has a steady job since he obtained a university degree. 24.The D’s father passed away in 2022. He is the only child of the family and is living with his mother. 25.The D and X met on a Chat group during the summer in 2020 when the D was a Year 3 University student while X was a Form 2 student. Today, the defence said that X has used a chat name “fuck u” in the Discord chat group. 26.They developed an intimate relationship at the end of the summer. 27.The D knew the age of X. In his letter to this court, he feels deeply sorry for what he had done to X. 28.As a result of this incident, the D suffers from depression and was admitted into hospital in April this year for 3 days as he had suicidal idea. 29.The Church that he attends also provided 5 mitigation letters on his behalf, his mother and his current girlfriend also show support and concerns for him. They are all in Court today. 30.In all these letters to me, I come to know that the D is a kind- hearted person and is willing to provide assistance to the children of the church members. 31.The D has regularly donated on a monthly basis to the Médecins Sans Frontières since September 2020 and donation of blood to the Red Cross on 5 occasions. Psychologist reports 32.The defence has provided me with a very comprehensive psychologist report which tells me that: -
33.His psychologist said that his risk of reoffending is low, while the government psychologist holds a different view that his risk of reoffending is at the lower end of moderate range. 34.Dr. Liu, the government psychiatrist, considers that he was not suffered from any major psychiatrist illness apart from the suspected paraphilic tendencies as he had repeated intercourse with X “should raise high suspicion on his pedophilic tendency”. Sentence 35.The maximum sentence for each charge: -
36.There is no sentencing guideline for the sexual offences. However, in paragraph 9 of the judgement in HKSAR v Tsang Chiu Tak [2013] 1 HKLRD 422, 427, the Court of Appeal pointed out that when the court dealt with offences of sexual assault on a child, the following factors need to take into consideration:
37.In the present case:
38.There are aggravating factors in Charge 3 and 10: -
39.As to Charge 8, the leading sentencing authority is Secretary for Justice v Man Kwong Choi [2008] HKCA 271 that for a first time offender after trial at level 4 (even for a few images), sentence ranges from 12 to 36 months. 40.Having considered all the mitigating factors, the reports and sentencing factors, I consider that: -
Totality 41.I consider that an overall sentence of 12 months is sufficient to reflect the gravity of the offence and the culpability of the defendant. 42.To this end, I order one month’ imprisonment from each charge of charge 1, 2, 8 and 10 to run consecutively to Charge 3. 43.I further reduce the sentence by 3 months for the mitigating factors of: -
44.The defendant is ordered to serve a period of 9 months’ imprisonment.
|
Cases cited in this judgment
Other judgments that cite this case