HKSAR v. L.W.D.

HCCC 302/2023

[2026] HKCFI 5232

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 302 OF 2023

________________________

BETWEEN

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

1.The defendant pleaded guilty to one count of “doing a series of acts tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice”, contrary to Common Law and punishable under section 101I(1)  of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance (Cap. 221).

2.The defendant admitted on 6 May 2020 with intent to pervert the course of justice in that he asked his daughter “X” not to make a police report in respect of her allegations of sexual abuse by her brothers L.H.C.J and L.H.C.N. 

Summary of facts

3.The defendant and his wife have three children namely two sons L.H.C.J, L.H.C.N and a daughter X.  They were born on 13 July 2001, 12 July 2002 and 25 April 2006 respectively.

4.The family had been living together for many years and resided in a house in Sha Tau Kok, New Territories (The family residence).

5.On 6 May 2020, X, then 14 years old, disclosed to a social worker (“SW”)  that she had been sexually abused by her two elder brothers when she was studying in primary school.  The SW informed X that she would notify her parents and report the matter to the police. 

6.Later the same day, the defendant and his wife went to see the SW, who informed them of the allegations made by X.  As a result of their discussion, it was agreed that X should stay temporarily at her maternal grandmother’s residence in Ma On Shan (Ma On Shan Residence). 

7.At around 6:20 p.m., the defendant drove the SW and X to the Ma On Shan Residence.  After X had settled in that evening the SW reminded the defendant and X’s mother the following:

(i)  not to disclose the incident to the two brothers,

(ii)  not to ask X further about the incident, and

(iii)  not to interfere with X’s views on the matter.

8.The defendant confirmed that he understood. 

9.At around 8:30 a.m. on the following day, the SW received a telephone call from X, stating that the allegations she had made against her two elder brothers the day before were false and she lied out of animosity towards them. The SW contacted X again later that afternoon but X insisted that she had lied in her allegations. 

10.Subsequently the SW tried to contact X and her mother on multiple occasions, but they declined counselling services or home visits.  On 24 August 2020 the SW ceased to follow up on X’s case.  No police report was made at the time. 

Report made to the police

11.At the end of November 2021, X told her school social worker Ms C about the alleged abuse by her two elder brothers.  On 9 December 2021, X expressed her wish to Ms C to make a report to the police, and the matter was reported to the police on the same day. 

Arrest and admissions of defendant

12.On 10 December 2021 the defendant was arrested for perverting the course of justice.  He stated, inter alia, in a video recorded interview under caution conducted on the same day that:

(a)  on 6 May 2020 at the Ma On Shan Residence he had asked X to give her brothers a chance and forgive them. He asked X not to report the case to the police because he did not want the family to fall apart and for the family members to be separated. X nodded her head in response.

(b)  Later that same evening whilst having dinner at a restaurant in Ma On Shan he had a private chat with X outside the restaurant away from the grandmother and X’s mother. He then asked X not to report the case to the police. He said that he did not want to lose three children overnight and did not want to end up having no one around him. X started crying and he hugged her while apologising and crying.

(c)  He believed that X subsequently changed her version to the social worker because he told her to give her elder brothers a chance.

(d)  He said he had made a mistake in telling her as he did not know how to handle the situation. He asked X not to report the case to the police for the sake of the family and because he did not want anyone to be in trouble.

Applicable sentencing factors

13.In HKSAR v LCL [2025] 5 HKLRD 1100[1] the Court of Appeal identified the relevant factors to be taken into account when sentencing for the offence of perverting the course of justice.  At para 100 the Court applied the sentencing guidelines in R v Reynolds Thomas Tunney [2007] 1 Cr App R(S)  91.  The factors are as follows: -

(a)  the seriousness of the substantive offence to which the perverting of the course of justice relates;

(b)  the degree of persistence in the conduct of the offender;

(c)  the effect of the attempt to pervert the course of justice or the course of justice itself; and

(d)  the consequences and legal responsibilities avoided or attempted to be avoided.

14.The Court of Appeal[2] stated that “perverting the course of justice is a serious offence, as it involves acts which pose as a direct challenge to the fundamentals of a societal institution under the rule of law and affects the administration of justice by the courts.  Public confidence in the criminal justice system would be shaken if offenders of this offence can get away with this.  As there are marked differences in terms of the commission and the means deployed in this type of cases, no sentencing tariffs have been laid down by the court.  The gravity of each case is different according to different circumstances.”

Mitigation

15.Mr Caesar Lo and Ms Mavis Lam mitigated on behalf of the defendant. Enclosed with their mitigation are letters from the defendant, the defendant’s daughter X and the defendant’s present employers of 12 years. 

16.The defendant is 48 years old.  He is married with three children.  His wife, elderly parents, younger son and daughter-in-law and granddaughter all live with him at the family residence. 

17.The defendant works as a concrete pump operator, earning around HK$40,000 per month. 

18.The defendant has seven previous convictions.  The offences were committed when the defendant was between 14 and 20 years of age.  The last conviction was almost 30 years ago. 

19.It is submitted on behalf of the defendant by Mr Lo and Ms Lam that offences tending to pervert the course of justice should attract deterrent sentences.  However, the seriousness of such offences is fact sensitive.  The present case sits at a materially lower level of culpability than the usual run of cases as it lacks persistent and sophisticated interference such as threats, bribes, falsification of evidence, or sustained pressure on witnesses.  More importantly, unlike the offenders in most “perverting” cases, the defendant was not personally involved in the underlying allegations, and it so happens that he is the father of all those involved. 

20.On 6 May 2020, what the defendant did was the raw and confused reaction of a father suddenly caught between two irreconcilable loyalties.  On one side stood his daughter, making a grave disclosure, on the other stood his two sons, facing the weight of that allegation.  It was submitted that no parent is ever prepared for such a moment.

21.In his anguish, the defendant made the wrong call, but his culpability must be measured against the reality that he was a father to both the complainant and the accused, not an outsider protecting himself or shielding a criminal associate.  He loved them all, and in that love, he lost his way.

22.The defendant was also compelled to conceal the matter from elderly relatives in the same household, acutely aware of the deep shame such allegations bring to a traditional Chinese family like his.  It is conceded that while this does not excuse his conduct, it illuminates the emotional turmoil that gave rise to his misguided request.

23.It was stressed that the defendant acts arose from a father’s disordered and emotional attempt to hold his family together, not from a calculated decision to undermine justice for personal gain.

Subsequent Communication from X

24.A video communication was received from X prior to the trial commencing.  X again retracted her allegations of sexual abuse against her brothers this year in 2026. 

25.X has also written a letter in mitigation in support of her father.  She expresses that she hopes the proceedings conclude swiftly and that the family move forward together.  The letter demonstrates that the defendant now has a healthy relationship with his daughter.  She is now in Australia pursing a medical career and states that her father plays an important role in her life. 

26.The defence states that it does not ask the Court to revisit the underlying allegations or to place weight on X’s position.  However, the defence suggests the tenor of the communication, namely her expressed wish to begin a new and contented life overseas and her relationship with her father, is a circumstance this Court may fairly consider.  It speaks to the resilience of a young woman who has chosen to move forward and assists the Court’s assessment of the continuing impact of the defendant’s words upon her.

27.The defence accepts that his plea of guilty was not at the first opportunity but only on the conclusion of his co-defendant younger son’s voir dire hearing on the fourth day of the trial. 

28.The reason it was tendered at that stage was as a result of further advise of his legal position and, in any event, before the jury was empaneled and any evidence was called.  Therefore, the plea avoided the need for a contested jury trial and preserved substantial judicial time, public resources, and the inconvenience otherwise occasioned to witnesses and jurors.

Discussion

29.The mitigation advanced by the defendant is compelling.  There is no denying that the underlying allegation of sexual abuse by the elder brothers on X were serious offences.  In a state of confusion, the defendant asked X not to report the matter so that he would not lose all three children.  The defendant’s culpability is to be measured against the reality that he was the father of both the complainant and the accused, and such acts were made in desperation and in turmoil. The present facts, I agree, sit at a lower level of culpability as there were no threats, bribes or instruction to falsify evidence. It was not a persistent or sustained pressure on X but an unsophisticated basic request.  I accept the defence’s submissions that it was the defendant’s disordered and emotional attempt to hold his family together and not from a calculated decision to undermine justice for personal gain.  

30.The offence was born of a single domestic crisis in May 2020, which in the eyes of the defendant put his family in a catastrophe.  On the day of his arrest under caution in his video recorded interview the defendant immediately acknowledged his guilt.  He accepted he was wrong and he had made a mistake as he did not know how to handle the situation. 

31.At the trial, the defendant did not challenge the admissibility of his record of interview.  That was the only evidence against him.  The defendant’s plea of guilty was tendered after he was further advised of his legal position.  His plea of guilty not at the earliest opportunity was through no fault of the defendant’s. 

32.Although the defendant has previous convictions, that was some 30 years ago.  He has had an unblemished record since.  He has, it appears, led an industrious life as a family man who financially supports the whole family. 

33.Without diminishing the gravity of the defendant’s conduct, applying the factors in LCL and for the reasons stated above I find there are exceptional circumstances in this case that deterrence is served by imposing a sentence of imprisonment but to be suspended. 

34.The defendant is sentenced to 12 months imprisonment suspended for 2 years. 

Ms Karen NG, SPP & Ms Angel Yuen, SPP of the Department of Justice, for HKSAR

Mr Caesar LO & Ms LAM Mavis Ching Heng (on Pro-bono Basis)  instructed by Messrs Tang & Lee, assigned by D.L.A. for the 2^nd defendant