HKSAR v. Lee Chuek Hon (also known as Lee Cheuk Hon)

DCCC 1216/2025

[2026] HKDC 829

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1216 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The defendant has entered pleas of guilty to two charges on this indictment.  Firstly, unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 16 years and then indecent conduct with a child under the age of 16 years, both offences involving the same victim described as “X” who is also described and was a girl of under the age of 13.  Both offences occurred on the same day at the same time.

2.Defendant is some 58 years old at present.  The Amended Summary of Facts has been agreed and supports the conviction of the defendant on those two charges.  This case arose out of a report from a girl described as “X” who was born on 17 June 2011, age 13.  The report was received on 13 January 2025.  The initial allegation was one of rape.  Another witness was interviewed who had gone to the flat with X and D in the early hours on 22 December 2024, whereas X and D had stayed in the bedroom of that flat.

3.A further investigation took place and the case was largely based on a set of admissions made by the defendant during a video-recorded interview on 17 January 2025 whilst he was under caution for rape.  He said that he was living in the flat, paying rent.  He had met X through the person described as PW1 at a gaming arcade the night before the offence.  X had some cigarettes, she appeared excited and eyes were blurry after smoking the cigarettes.  He described the sense she had some eagerness to have sex, however, he realised that she was very young and felt hesitant about it.  In fact, X was, according to him, a Form 2 student and had mentioned to the defendant she was only 13 years of age.  The facts then detail the intimacy that occurred between them which involved oral sex, sexual intimacy in respect her sexual parts and also sexual intercourse during that course of that evening.  They had exchanged telephone numbers and ended up, as it were, talking.  Those are the facts that the defendant agreed to. 

4.He is now 58 years old.  He has record of previous convictions dating back to 1997.  He has no similar offences and his offences largely relate to minor offences.

5.I will deal now with the mitigation.  He said that he had pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity to charges 1 and 2.  He is married and married in 2023.  The defendant has been detained since his arrest on 16 January 2025.  In his mitigation, the defendant says that he is remorseful for what he has done, committed the offence out of foolishness and impulse at the time.  He has written a mitigation letter which I have read.

6.I now deal with the offence itself. There is no actual sentencing guideline for these particular offences because the circumstances which they can be committed range widely.  There is a case of HKSAR v Tsang Chiu Tak which I have been referred to, [2013] 1 HKLRD 422, which deals with the sexual assaults and intercourse with child. The court needs to take into account the age difference between the defendant and the victim; the relationship between the defendant and the victim; where there is an abusive position of trust or status; whether threats or inducements were used; the number of occasions of the offence which were committed; whether any violence was used; were any safety measures taken in relation to avoiding pregnancy or venereal disease transmission; whether there is any trauma to the victim; whether the impact on any family members of the victim; whether there were any inappropriate behaviours such as taking photographs or the like and also the psychological position of the defendant, does he have any paedophilic tendencies or likelihood of reoffending.

7.I have been referred to a number of other cases by the defence where sentences for this kind of offences which range of starting points between 12 months up to 24 months’ imprisonment for a single offence.  It is the case, and admitted by the defence, that a huge age gap of some 44 years existed between the defendant and the girl, that they had met in a game centre.  The offences, as agreed in the Brief Facts, lasted for a short period. 

8.The defendant did take protection and wore a condom at the time and he agreed to buy the girl some e-cigarettes so there was an element of a commercial transaction taking place.  It is said the girl was willing.  The defendant did not take advantage of a position of superiority or there was no breach of trust in the offences.  No violence, harm or discomfort has apparently been caused to the girl.  There is no evidence before this court of any psychological or physical trauma to the victim.  Defendant was foolish and took advantage of the age difference that existed between the parties. 

9.I have obtained a Psychological Report which deals quite extensively with the defendant’s background.  I will simply deal with the conclusions.  The major conclusions, there is no sign of major psychopathology nor deviant sexual interest.  The defendant’s risk of sexual offending is assessed to be low while his general reoffending risk levels may be higher.  There may be some correlation.

10.The defendant is recommended to receive some psychological treatment to focus on his gambling and substance abuse problems.  So the defendant is assessed to have both a gambling problem and substance abuse problem but not a problem in relation to sexual reoffending. That is a mitigating factor I must take into account.

11.Bearing in mind all these considerations and the defendant’s substantial detention before his plea of guilty, what I shall do is on each charge, charge 1 and 2, I will take a starting point of 27 months’ imprisonment which will be reduced to 18 months’ imprisonment to reflect the defendant’s pleas of guilty.  He is entitled to a full discount. 

12.As far as the overall totality is concerned, these offences were committed at the same time against the same victim and they will be served concurrently to each another.

13.So an overall totality of 18 months’ imprisonment for these offences will be imposed.