HKSAR v. Leung Kam Wah

HCCC 225/2025

[2026] HKCFI 3456

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 225 OF 2025

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant had pleaded guilty in the Magistrates’ Court to one count of aggravated burglary in that he entered as a trespasser on 5 July 2024 in Lai King Estate, Kwai Chung, with intent to rape X and at the time of the entry had with him a cutter.

The 2nd count is that inside the premises of Madam X, he indecently assaulted her. And he also, on that day, in Hong Kong, attempted to rape Madam X, and that is the 3rd charge. The 4th charge is that he committed an assault occasioning actual bodily harm on Y, and also on the same day committed a similar offence of assault occasioning actual bodily harm on Z.

The facts are very, very serious indeed. The victim is a female, and on the day of the offence was aged 26, and she left her home at 3.40 pm with her 9-month-old baby in a pram. In fact, at 3.40 pm, she was going home with her 9‑month-old baby in a pram. And when she entered the building where she lived, the defendant followed her into the lift. And when she got out of the lift and headed towards her flat, she did not realise that the defendant was following her. She opened the door of her flat and tried pushing the pram into the flat.

At that time, the defendant, who was behind her, asked if she needed help. When Madam X turned around, she saw the defendant, who was pointing a cutter at her back. And the defendant said to her, “Not meant to do anything, just wanted to be happy.” Madam X was very frightened and was very concerned that the defendant would hurt her and the baby. So she had no alternative but to let the defendant into the flat.

Madam X then quickly put her baby inside the room, and when she came out, the defendant pointed the cutter at her and came towards her. Madam X was so scared and concerned for her safety and the baby’s safety, she dared not yell for help. Madam X sat on the sofa and asked the defendant to put the cutter down, and he did so. And it was then that the defendant fondled her breast under her clothes and kissed Madam X on her neck and lip and then French kissed her. The assault lasted for a few minutes and Madam X was too scared to shout for help.

She tried secretly dialling 999, but she could not say anything. So then she dialled her mother’s number, secretly and said aloud, “Do not hurt my baby”, hoping that her mother would realise she needed help.

The defendant then asked Madam X if she found it very exciting and Madam X asked him what he wanted and the defendant told Madam X that he wanted her to perform oral sex on him. At that stage, the baby cried, and Madam X went into the bedroom to breastfeed the baby. The defendant followed her into the room and took off her shorts and underwear and began licking Madam X’s private parts, and then inserted his finger into X’s vagina.

And at that stage, Madam X was very, very frightened that the defendant would rape her and hurt her baby. And so she dare not resist. Madam X discreetly called her mother again and shouted, “Do not hurt my baby.” And eventually, the doorbell rang. X’s mother, Madam Y, and her boyfriend, Z, on receiving the calls from X, found it suspicious and realised that X was in trouble. They immediately went to X’s premises, and also on the way, they called the police.

So when the doorbell rang, Madam X put the baby back into the crib and went to open the door. At the same time, the defendant fetched his cutter from the table and hid behind a wooden door. Y and Z entered into the flat, and Y asked the defendant who he was. The defendant said he was Madam X’s friend. Then Z tried to subdue the defendant and pushed him on the sofa. Y also tried to hold the defendant under control, whilst X snatched the cutter from the defendant’s hand.

The defendant put up a fierce struggle and pulled Y’s hair, hitting her head and kicking her leg. This is the subject matter of the 4th charge. The defendant also hit Z on his head and bit Z on his shoulder. That is the subject matter of the 5th charge.

Finally, a few minutes later, the police arrived and took the defendant under control. X, Y and Z were conveyed to the hospital for medical examinations. Although X suffered no injury to her private parts, she was extremely scared. Y suffered minor head injury, a 1 mm small patch of erythema on the left forehead and tenderness on the left ankle. Z suffered from minor head injury, superficial scratch marks on his left neck and bilateral hands, and bruising and tenderness over the right deltoid with superficial abrasion.

Subsequently, Madam X’s husband was informed and the police then arrested the defendant for attempted rape. And under caution, the defendant admitted that he wanted to take sexual advantage of Madam X. And the defendant, also in the struggle, had sustained some injury, so he was taken to hospital, where he was found to have tenderness on his right chest wall and nose epistaxis.

And in a video-recorded interview, subsequently, the defendant admitted that at about 1600 hours, he left home with a cutter, and he intended to seek out a victim and use the cutter to threaten the victim. He intended to look for a woman, preferably with a fuller body figure, to rape her. And when he arrived at the wet market, he saw Madam X was wearing a skirt. He was sexually aroused, he tailed Madam X and followed her home. And that was when he then managed to point the cutter at Madam X and gain entry into her home.

And he admitted the indecent assault on Madam X, and also that he took off Madam X’s underpants and shorts because he wanted to rape her. And he admitted the molestation on Madam X, and he said that he felt pitiful of Madam X, and that she was very worried about the baby, so he did not rape her in the end. And the doorbell rang, and he was scared and wanted to escape, but he failed to do so. He admitted he struggled when Y and Z tried to put him under control. And he chose Madam X as the victim because of her body figure.

CCTV recordings were also captured on the building premises, and the defendant identified himself following Madam X into the lift and leaving the lift. And the cutter used by the defendant was recovered by the police, and it was 15 centimetres long, and when the blade was extended, it could reach 8 centimetres long.

A victim’s impact report was called for and was very comprehensively prepared by a clinical psychologist, Ms Chong. And of course, as rightly admitted by Mr Hui, the assessment is not in dispute. Many tests were conducted on Madam X, and this episode left her very scared, so scared that for her own mental stability, she had to move away from the building where she lived to another place.

And despite that, this assault has had a lasting psychological impact on her. And as Ms Chong pointed out, although moving away provided some relief by reducing the environmental triggers, she continued to rely heavily on defensive avoidance to manage intrusive memories and associated fear. Ms Chong pointed out in conclusion that she still has residual symptoms of anxiety, low mood, hypervigilance at her doorway and in corridors, and impaired sexual functioning.

And Ms Chong is of the opinion that Madam X will be greatly assisted by psychological therapy in the future, in order to help her process her experience in a contained and supportive manner. However, Madam X wanted to express a wish to move on, and without revisiting the trauma, and was therefore hesitant about engaging in therapy. All I can say is that therapy will certainly help Madam X to move on, and I totally understand Madam X not wanting therapy, thinking that it will revive these horrific memories in her.

But however, in order to move on, she has to put down these horrific memories and deal with it. So I hope that she will choose this path, with Ms Chong helping her, that she can move on, and resume her normal life, hopefully, and her normal sexual relations with her husband.

Having said that, one understands now the very serious nature of this type of offence. A young woman, aged 26, is now marred by this incident, and hopefully not forever, but it will take her many, many years to overcome this. The defendant himself is aged 67, and in mitigation, Mr Hui has said everything he has to say in mitigation. It is very difficult to sentence, because whatever the sentence will be, can only have a small effect on the impact of these offences on the victim.

The only mitigation I see in this case is the fact that the defendant has pleaded guilty, and thus saved Madam X from having to give evidence. I fully understand also, having read the letter submitted by the defendant’s younger brother, that his family, of course, is supportive of him, and he has suggested that the defendant became lonely after his divorce, as his marriage had fallen apart. But this is no way to ruin someone’s life, and this is not an excuse.

Mr Hui has very helpfully referred to cases of sentencing in the past, and urged leniency on behalf of the defendant. Aggravated burglary for Charge 1 carries a maximum of life imprisonment, and so it is a very serious offence when a person enters premises which is a home, a sanctuary for the homeowner, and commits a serious offence. And in this case, he went in with a cutter, he had gone out to look for a victim to satisfy his selfish lust, and the victim was vulnerable, a young lady of age 26, and also even more vulnerable because she had a baby in her pram.

Whatever cases have gone on in the past, I think the sentence has to be case-specific and it must act as a deterrence both for the defendant and generally for the public. And so, I have determined that for Count 1, the starting point sentence would be one of 9 years’ imprisonment, and it will be reduced to 6 years’ imprisonment because of his plea.

On Charge 2, the indecent assault, it is an innocent young lady who had her dignity taken away by the defendant’s actions, fondling her breasts and French kissing her. And indecent assault carries a maximum sentence of 10 years’ imprisonment. And as Mr Justice Ko said so many years ago, in 2002, in the case of HKSAR v Cheung Kwai Sang, reported at 3 HKC 589, it is important that in all cases involving indecent assault, that there be an element of deterrence of others to mark the public abhorrence and the need to redress the grievances suffered.

We very often forget that comparing indecent assault to other sexual assaults, that we often forget that it is very serious on the victim. And so these words are timely reminders to us that the grievances suffered and the abhorrence of the public has to be taken into account. So I consider that 18 months’ imprisonment as a starting point, and reduce it to 12 months because of his plea.

On Charge 3, which is the attempted rape, the victim was tormented, although Mr Hui said while the whole incident took half an hour. But even for 10 minutes, one cannot imagine the horror the victim must have felt because she was so concerned for her own safety and also for the safety of her baby. The defendant followed her into the bedroom when she was feeding her baby and took off her shorts and underwear and proceeded to molest her. And if not for the quick thinking of the victim, one wonders how long this horrific hell that Madam X faced would have lasted.

In fact, she was saved by the doorbell, by the timely arrival of her mother, whom she had managed to secretly call and said the words, “Do not harm my baby.” And so, this attempted rape stopped and so taking into account those facts, I consider that an 8 year starting point is merited in the circumstances and I will reduce it to 64 months because of his plea, and that is 5 years and 4 months.

Charge 4 and 5 are the assaults occasioning actual bodily harm on Madam X’s mother and her boyfriend. And I would say that on Charge 4, a starting point of 6 months reduced to 4 months. And on Charge 5, 6 months reduced to 4 months. Of course, as Mr Hui pointed out, I have to consider the totality principle and the aggravated burglary in Charge 1 is 6 years’ imprisonment, and then the indecent assault on Charge 2 is 12 months’ imprisonment. And I would make those concurrent, the sentences concurrent.

And then Charge 3, 5 years 4 months, I will make 3 years of that 5 years 4 months consecutive to the 6 years in Counts 1 and 2, giving a total of 9 years’ imprisonment. And then the 4 months each in Counts 4 and 5 will be concurrent to each other and also concurrent to the 9 years.

So the defendant goes to prison for 9 years.