COURT: The defendant is the stepfather of X who was convicted after trial by the jury of four sexual offences against X, his stepdaughter. These four offences were committed contrary to the Crimes Ordinance, Chapter 200, and were as follows:
(1) Count 1, indecent assault, contrary to section 122 and 153P(2).
(2) Count 2, indecent assault, contrary to section 122 and 153P(2).
(3) Count 3, indecent conduct towards a child under the age of 16, contrary to section 146.
(4) Count 4, rape, contrary to section 118.
On 15 April 2026, on the first day of the trial for the above four offences, the defendant pleaded guilty to Count 6 on the indictment of doing an act tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice, contrary to Common Law and section 101I(1) of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Chapter 221.
I turn to the background facts. The defendant is X’s stepfather. The defendant was born on 3 June 1979 in Hubei, China. He is now 47 years old. X was born on 20 November 2000 in Hong Kong. The defendant is 21 years older than X.
X was born from her mother’s previous marriage. X’s parents divorced in 2000 when her mother was pregnant with X. After X’s mother divorced her father, X, her mother, and X’s elder brother and father continued to live together until X was five years old. X’s father moved out of the residence in 2005 and went to live in his own premises while X lived with her mother and elder brother.
The defendant married X’s mother in 2007 when X was seven years old. X’s eldest younger half-brother was born to her mother and the defendant in 2007 whilst X’s youngest half-brother was born to the defendant and X’s mother in 2012.
In 2011, the defendant commenced living in Hong Kong with X, X’s mother, X’s elder brother, and older younger half-brother when the defendant was granted a one-way permit from the mainland.
In or about 2012, the family moved to live at a corrugated iron hut in a remote area in Hong Kong. Three of the sexual offences, that is Counts 2, 3, and 4, took place at their home in the hut. At the time the family started living in the hut, X was 12 years old.
The defendant continued to live in the hut with X’s mother and their two sons until his arrest for the offence of rape on X on 14 August 2024. X lived at the hut with the rest of the family until X was kicked out by the defendant in November 2021 when X was about 21 years old.
Since X was kicked out of the home, she never returned to live there. She either lived with her maternal grandmother or her boyfriend and latterly in transitional housing. X ceased all communication with the defendant since November 2021.
X had seen her mother for about four to five times since she was kicked out until about March 2023. In about March 2023, X told her mother the defendant had sexual relations with her. X had not seen or communicated with her mother since then.
The facts in relation to the counts
Count 1, indecent assault
On an unknown date between April and May 2014, in a trip to Dongguan with the family, while staying overnight at the defendant’s older brother’s house in Dongguan, mainland China, when X was about 13 years old, the defendant lay on X’s bed and touched her breasts several times and squeezed her nipple under her shirt.
Count 2, indecent assault
On an unknown date in March 2015, in the hut, the defendant went to X’s bedroom at about 11 pm. The defendant sat on X’s bed and slowly moved his head near her face and X could smell heavy alcohol on him. The defendant slipped his hand under her underpants and used his fingers to touch her private parts and inserted his fingers into her vagina. At that time, she was aged 14.
Count 3, indecent conduct with a child
On an unknown date in April 2015, whilst in the hut the defendant told X to masturbate him. Complying with the defendant’s request, X masturbated him. At that time, X was 14 years old.
Count 4, rape
On an unknown date between June and July 2015 when X was 14 years old, the defendant had sexual intercourse with X without her consent. At about 11 pm, the defendant went into X’s bedroom. He pulled X to the living room and pushed her to the upper floor into the bedroom that the defendant shared with X’s mother. At that time, the defendant said he wanted it.
The defendant pushed X onto his bed that he shared with X’s mother. The defendant used his left hand to press against both X’s hands. The defendant exerted great force so X could not use her hands. He then removed her underpants. As both her legs were apart and the defendant was in the middle of her legs, she was unable to push him away with her legs.
X said it was the first time she had experienced sexual intercourse. When the defendant tried to insert his penis, it was very painful. Initially, when he inserted it into her vagina, it was not a full penetration. However, he moved for about one or two minutes and all of a sudden, he had one move when his penis was fully inserted. After penetrating her for about five minutes, the defendant then withdrew his penis and he ejaculated on X’s genitals. At the time, the defendant did not wear a condom.
Immediately after the sexual intercourse, X wore back her underwear and used a tissue to wipe off the semen and rushed down to the bathroom. There was bleeding and blotting. X felt very painful.
Count 6, perverting the course of justice
The defendant pleaded guilty to this count on the first day of the trial. The defendant admitted that between 26 and 27 January 2025, after he had been charged with raping X on 16 August 2024, that he sent X a WhatsApp text message threatening X that his lawyer would claim at least $500,000 from X. In doing so, the defendant sent to X two capture photos of WhatsApp messages exchanged between himself and his lawyers.
It was evident from X’s evidence at the trial, after each of the sexual assaults on her, she remained silent and made no complaint or report to anyone until after she was kicked out of her home by the defendant when she was about 21 years old. As a result of her silence, the defendant had the confidence to escalate his sexual abuse on X from the first time he sexually assaulted her in Dongguan in April or May 2014 to June or July 2015.
From 2014, in her heart, X stated that she hated the defendant but she carried on a pretence in the eyes of others a normal stepfather-daughter harmonious relationship with him, until she was kicked out of the house because she did not want others to know nor did she want her mother to get upset after learning about it. X stated that she knew that when these things happen, she would have to give an account to a lot of people. She was very frightened and she did not know how to face the emotions.
Moreover, the defendant was the sole breadwinner of the family and if she told others, there would be a consequence that the family would lose their breadwinner and she was not the only one in the family as she had two younger brothers and they were very young. She did not want to break up the family.
When X completed secondary school in the summer of August 2019, she was 18 years old. After X graduated from secondary school, X had a part-time job and started returning home late. X said the defendant regularly sent her WhatsApp messages and asked for her whereabouts. X believed that the defendant wanted to be in charge of her life. X found the regular communication by the defendant was exerting pressure on her.
In November 2021, the defendant kicked X out of the hut as she returned home very late. The defendant slapped her face and requested her to hand over her mobile phone so he could read her WhatsApp messages. The defendant threw her belongings out of the hut. X then went to live with her grandmother.
Since X was kicked out of the home, she never returned there to live. X ceased all communication with the defendant since November 2021. X had seen her mother for a few times since she was kicked out until March 2023.
In March 2023, X told her mother the defendant had sexual relations with her. After informing her mother, X had not seen or communicated with her mother since.
X did not tell anyone about the defendant’s sexual abuse until she met her boyfriend from her higher diploma course. At that time, her boyfriend encouraged her to report the defendant to the police when X told him about it but X told him she was not ready to do so, so X did not report it at the time.
At a later date, her boyfriend told X about an organisation called RainLily and suggested to X to see a social welfare officer there. X approached the social welfare officer at RainLily to talk to social workers about the sexual abuse by the defendant. After X met the social welfare officer, X slowly began to open up about the abuse. X told the social welfare officer about the incidents one by one. X did tell the social welfare officer she wanted to report the defendant to the police, but could not get over it psychologically, so did not dare make the report even after seeing the social welfare officer. The social welfare officer gradually reassured and comforted X such that she was not frightened anymore.
It was only when X was successful in applying for her transitional housing and her academic status, and emotions had settled did she make up her mind to report the abuse to the police in August 2024.
The defendant in this case has committed sexual assaults on a child. The courts in Hong Kong have reiterated numerous times that the court have to protect innocent, trusting children and prevent vulnerable persons from sexual abuse. The Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Tsang Chiu Tak [2013] 1 HKLRD 427 sets out the sentencing principles when dealing with offences involving sexual assaults on children. Cheung JA, in giving reasons for the court, stated at paragraph 8:
“The Court of Appeal reiterated in many cases that the court had to protect innocent trusting children and prevent those vulnerable persons from sexual abuse which would cause them physical and psychological trauma. In cases involving sexual assault on a child, it was necessary for the court to adopt deterrent sentences to deter others from committing similar offences. Such deterrent sentences were to show the abhorrence of members of the public to crimes of this nature and to redress the grievance suffered by the victims and their families.”
The Court of Appeal further pointed out the following factors that was needed to be taken into consideration when the court dealt with offences of sexual abuse on a child at paragraph 9:
“(1) The age difference between the defendant and the victim;
(2) The relationship between the defendant and the victim, including whether the defendant had taken advantage of his position or status to commit the offence and whether there was a breach of trust in the case;
(3) Whether the defendant had used threats or inducements to make the victim succumb;
(4) The number of occasions of committing the offences and the duration of the offences;
(5) Whether inappropriate and unnecessary violence was used by the defendant to cause harm or discomfort to the victim;
(6) Whether any safety measures were taken by the defendant in sexually abusing the victim in order to avoid transmitting any venereal disease to the victim or getting her pregnant;
(7) Whether the sexual abuses have caused physical or psychological trauma to the victim;
(8) Whether the offences have impact on the family members of the victim;
(9) Whether the defendant was involved in other inappropriate behaviour such as inviting other people to watch or take photos or videos of the offence he committed;
(10) Whether the defendant is psychologically imbalanced and paedophilic and the likelihood of re-offending.”
The defendant was a cross-border driver as well as a driver in Hong Kong. He has a clear record.
The defendant married X’s mother when X was age 7. He was effectively her father and X was required to call him “father” all along. As the defence counsels Mr Billy Yau and Mr Benson Wong rightly recognise, this is a serious case of sexual abuse. However, it is submitted by the defence that the risk of the defendant re-offending is low as the defendant has severed all ties and X has moved on with her life.
The defendant committed the first offence of indecent assault when X was 13 years old. The sexual assaults continued and escalated over the years until she was eventually raped at the age of 14. He was 21 years her senior. During the period of sexual abuse, X was an underage child who had no way to protect herself.
The aggravating factor in this case is that this case involved a serious breach of trust. The defendant was her stepfather living under the same roof. X described the defendant as a strict and authoritative stepfather. He displayed his dominance over X. As X kept silent and did not tell anyone, the defendant took advantage of her silence and her pretence of a normal relationship with him. No condom was used when the defendant raped X.
There is no sentencing guideline for these types of offences. Every case rests on its own facts. The sentence passed must reflect one of deterrence in order to protect the vulnerable children and the abhorrence of the community as well as the culpability of the defendant. In HKSAR v KKK [2013] 2 HKLRD 676 at paragraph 28, Stock VP giving judgment for the Court of Appeal said:
“...girls in the position of the victims in this case are innocents, who commence their young lives instinctively trusting, and entitled to trust, the families into which they are born. They have no option but to live in the places to which they are brought after birth and to which from time to time they are taken. They are wholly at the mercy of their parents. The fundamental right of the child is to expect from its parents protection and love. In most instances, in this society, that is what the child and young person receives. That is the normal instinct of the parent. It is painful to recognise that that instinctive protection and love is not always provided. But actual abuse of a child through physical violence or deliberate neglect is not merely at odds with that to which a child is entitled; it is a damnable breach of the trust which the child and society at large places in a parent. And since the child is not in a position to protect itself or seek relief, society at large - ultimately through the courts - takes upon itself the duty proactively to protect the child and to visit condign punishment upon those who so abuse the trust as deliberately to harm the child. In the circumstances of a case such as the present, the child is captive, physically and emotionally, and it is in that light that the seriousness of the sexual offence of a child by its parent, or by a person in the position of a parent, is to be viewed.”
According to the victim impact report dated 21 May 2026, the sexual abuse by the defendant on X has caused X substantial enduring psychological harm and trauma on her. X suffers from a pattern of chronic fear, humiliation, anger, intrusive recollections, nightmares, avoidance, persistent anxiety, depressive symptoms, and marked emotional distress. She suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder.
A further source of psychological injury arose from the aftermath of disclosure. X stated that when she eventually gathered the courage to disclose the offences to her mother, rather than experience the protection and emotional support, X reported that her mother reduced contact with her and withdrew financial support for her studies.
The psychologist was of the view that X had experienced a profound relational loss and secondary trauma, particularly in the context of her already difficult history of silence, fear, and conflicted loyalty within the family. X reported feeling disheartened upon learning from the news that her mother had testified in court that she did not believe X and denied the abuse. This appeared likely to have compounded X’s hurt and grief.
It was the psychologist’s view that the impact upon X appeared to have been further compounded, therefore, by the prolonged delay in disclosure and the painful experience of maternal disbelief and withdrawal of support following disclosure.
Taking into account all the circumstances of the present case, including the aggravating factors as mentioned, I sentence the defendant to the following terms.
On Count 1, I consider an appropriate sentence to be one of 2 years’ imprisonment. On Count 2, I consider an appropriate sentence to be one of 3 years’ imprisonment. On Count 3, I consider an appropriate sentence to be 4 years’ imprisonment. On Count 4, I consider the appropriate sentence to be one of 12 years’ imprisonment.
I turn now to Count 6 for the offence of averting the course of justice. There is no tariff for this offence. In the case of R v Reynolds Thomas Tunney [2007] 1 Crim App R (S) 91, the English Court of Appeal held that when imposing sentence, the court should have regard to three principal factors:
(1) the seriousness of the original offence that gave rise to the conduct, constituting an obstruction of the course of justice;
(2) the persistence of the obstructing conduct; and
(3) the consequences of the obstructing conduct upon the course of justice.
In general terms, the offence of obstructing the course of justice is subject to no sentencing guidelines.
In the present case, the underlying offence that gave rise to the conduct constituting an obstruction of justice was a serious offence of rape. The defendant sent X messages of his exchanges with his solicitor. The messages sent by the defendant to the solicitor complained about the loss of his income as a result of X’s complaint and that she was bewitched by her boyfriend, and therefore he should never have been accused. The defendant said his lawyer would claim HK$500,000 from X.
This was not, as the defendant claims, a matter of the defendant pouring out his grievances and to express his feelings to X. It was an indirect accusation that X’s account was untrue and the case should never proceed as X was bewitched or controlled by her boyfriend. The defendant knew that X was in no position to pay, nor could she afford to pay this huge sum of HK$500,000. Demand was made by the defendant when he knew X was accusing him of rape and would be a witness in the case. This was an intimidating and threatening act towards X.
I reject the defence’s submission that the perverting attempt was unsuccessful as X continued to give evidence for the prosecution and the effect on the administration of justice was minimal.
The defendant pleaded guilty to this count on the first day of trial, having given notice to the court about three weeks before that that he would plead guilty. The defendant’s late plea of guilty on the first day of trial does not entitle him to a one-third discount, but only to a 20 per cent discount as laid down by the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Ngo Van Nam [2016] 5 HKLRD 1.
I consider the appropriate sentence for Count 6 after trial on all the facts to be one of 3 years’ imprisonment. Giving the defendant a 20 per cent discount for his plea of guilty, that term shall be reduced to 2 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.
Finally now, after taking into account the principle of totality, I have to determine the overall sentence that the defendant shall serve. I take into account the offences were separate and distinct offences but bear in mind the totality principle. I consider that the overall sentence the defendant shall serve should be 13 years’ imprisonment.
To achieve the totality of 13 years, I make the following orders. In Count 1, the defendant’s term is one of 2 years’ imprisonment, 3 months of that term is to run consecutive to Count 4, and 21 months is to run concurrent to all other sentences. In Count 2, the defendant’s term is one of 3 years’ imprisonment, 3 months of that term is to run consecutive to Count 4, and 2 years and 9 months’ imprisonment is to run concurrent to all other charges.
In count , the defendant’s term is one of 4 years’ imprisonment, 3 months of that term is to run consecutive to Count 4, and 3 years and 9 months is to run concurrent to all charges. Count 6, the term is 2 years, 4 months’ imprisonment, 3 months of that term is to run consecutive to Count 4, and 2 years, 1 month is to run concurrent to all other charges. This makes a total of 13 years’ imprisonment to which the defendant shall serve.
