COURT: First of all, I will say a few words in relation to the victim of the case, Ms Ng Yan-yu, which is not often done in sentencing. However, I do feel that this will make the crime that has been found against both defendants even more heartbreaking.
The facts in relation to the background of Ms Ng Yan-yu comes from the statement of a Madam Cheung Kwan-ping, who was a tutor at the Shine Skills Centre, and her statement is in the trial bundle, in the court bundle. She gave the statement on 23 November 2020.
As a tutor at Shine Skills Centre, she was responsible for providing vocational training to persons with intellectual disabilities. She said that she first met Ms Ng Yan-yu in around September 2014 and at that time, Ms Ng Yan-yu had
enrolled in the Senior Secondary Adapted Applied Learning course for students with intellectual disabilities. And she said, Ms Ng at that time, had mild intellectual disability, hearing impairment and speech impairment.
In her opinion, however, she said that Ms Ng was well-behaved and obedient. Then in September 2016, Ms Ng took a two-year full-time course in Commercial and Retailing Service. As her class teacher then, Madam Cheung got a deeper impression of Ms Ng and this was a full-time course of two years. In the opinion of Madam Cheung, Ms Ng was a hygienic and tidy person. She could look after herself, she would bring lunch to school and eat her lunch and then go to the bathroom herself. And she was able to change classroom between lessons.
And Madam Cheung went on to say that since she was relatively well behaved with a sense of responsibility, sometimes Madam Cheung would give her tasks to do. For example, keeping attendance book, and she was able to do it responsibly every time. The course included teaching students computer application, gift-wrapping, shop cleaning, etc.
Madam Cheung said that, like any other student, she was close to about three to four girls in the class. She was regarded as a nice person, although a bit of an introvert. She never saw Ms Ng lose her temper. Sometimes she saw that when Ms Ng felt she was wronged, she would keep the sadness to herself. But unfortunately, Ms Ng never completed the course because in July 2017, the school received a notice of withdrawal from the mother, the 2nd defendant.
I go on now to sentence. First of all, the 1st count of the 1st defendant.
This is one of the worst indecent assault I have encountered in my many years on the Bench, and also as a criminal practitioner. Ms Ng was helpless in house 131, surrounded by the 1st defendant’s so-called “disciples” and they took advantage of her slight mental deficiency. The 1st defendant used a dildo on her, under the pretext of some Taoist ritual and thrust the whole length of the dildo into her vagina, causing her to yell out in pain. It was a vicious, cruel and totally immoral and inhumane act.
I can see no mitigation in this case and I sentence the defendant to the maximum sentence allowed under the law, to 10 years’ imprisonment, to reflect the utter abhorrence of society to this crime.
Now, Count 2, the aiding and abetting of an indecent assault by the 2nd accused. In many circumstances, the 2nd defendant’s case is even worse than the 1st accused. She is the mother of Ms Ng, the victim, and knowing that her daughter was suffering from mild intellectual disability, who was defenceless, she allowed her daughter to not only be abused, but participated, together with the 1st accused, in this venture.
She saw -- she not only went with the 1st accused to buy the dildo, she also stood by and watched while her daughter was being so gravely assaulted and while her daughter cried out in pain, she still did nothing. One cannot contemplate a more cruel act by a mother on her own flesh and blood. As I have said, this is a very horrendous and inhumane act on Ms Ng, and not only did the 2nd accused breach her duty of care to her daughter, she actively participated in this evil abuse of her daughter.
She breached the ultimate duty of care owed to her daughter and thus deserved the same sentence as the 1st accused as I see no mitigating factors in this case.
It is rare indeed for a sentencing court to sentence the maximum sentence allowed under the law, but in this case, the facts are so serious that I cannot contemplate a more serious case and therefore, the 2nd accused is sent to prison for 10 years.
Now, in relation to the 3rd count against the 1st accused, the only sentence I can pronounce on him, in view of the verdict of the jury, is one of life imprisonment. And this life imprisonment will be served concurrently with the sentence in Count 1.