HKSAR v. Ys

HCCC 154/2026

[2026] HKCFI 5194

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 154 OF 2026

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording

of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to a total of 14 counts of rape and one count of non-consensual buggery. The counts spread over a decade, from 2014 to 2024. All the counts involved the same victim, “X”, and the defendant is the biological father of X.

X was born in July 2000 in Shenzhen and had lived with the defendant and her mother in Shenzhen since birth. In 2004, X’s mother gave birth to X’s younger brother. In 2012, the defendant obtained permission to move and reside in Hong Kong, and he would travel from Hong Kong to Shenzhen to visit family at weekends.

It was only in 2016, X and her mother obtained permission to come to Hong Kong and reside permanently. These offences took place in Shenzhen and Hong Kong, both before and after her successful application to come to Hong Kong.

These types of offences had always been viewed seriously by the court.

In the case of Tsang Chiu Tak [2013] 1 HKLRD 427, the Court of Appeal talks about the sentencing principle in this type of case, had this to say:

“The Court of Appeal reiterated in many recent cases that the court had to protect innocent trusting children and prevent these 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 pointed out that when the court dealt with offences of sexual assault on a child, the factors that it needed to take into consideration included:

(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 and 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”

And, finally:

“Whether the defendant is psychologically imbalanced and paedophilic and the likelihood of re-offending.”

In the case of HKSAR v KKK [2013] 2 HKLRD 676, in commenting the case which involved a biological father sexually abused his daughters, 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, for that is the normal instinct of the parent. It is painful to recognise that the instinctive protection enough 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 to 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 that trust as deliberately to harm the child. In the circumstances of a case such as the present, the child is a captive, physically and emotionally, and it is in that light that the seriousness of a sexual offence of a child by its parent, or by a person in the position of a parent, is to be viewed.”

You were born in 1977. You have no previous criminal record. Prior to your current detention, you worked in construction site. I have also before me two reports: a background report and a psychological report. You had also written to the court.

I also had letters from your family as well as from one of your friends. In particular, your family member and your friend who had written on your behalf said you are a very hardworking person. You woke up early and stayed until very late in the evening to work hard in order to support your family. In particular, your friend said that you are the sole breadwinner.

With respect, from what I have read from the Summary of Facts, your wife is working. She works longer hours than you, from the reports that I have read, as well as your letter.

I agree with the psychologist that your remorse is superficial. You pleaded guilty simply because a realisation of the inevitable convictions, if there is a trial. I see nothing in your background, nor from the letters written on your behalf, which merits the mercy of the court and amounts to mitigation.

The only mitigation in your case is one of a plea of guilty.

In the case of Chow Yuen Fai, Criminal Appeal No 392 of 2008, the Court of Appeal said, when they talked about whether there should be any additional discount in sexual assault cases when the defendant pleaded guilty, the Court of Appeal said:

“...these and other cases which suggest that an additional discount may be given where a victim is spared the ordeal of giving evidence (and therefore having to recount the traumatic incident or incidents in question) must now be viewed against the general principle that the one-third discount is usually to be regarded as the high watermark of the discount for pleading guilty in good time.”

The Court of Appeal said:

“Only in exceptional cases should a discount of more than one-third be given for a timely plea.”

The Court of Appeal in Lee Kwok Wai, Criminal Appeal No 199 of 2011, the Court of Appeal in paragraph 17:

“In an older case, namely, R v Barry Summers, this court had stated that ‘the discount which is granted for plea may well be somewhat greater than would be given in normal cases because of this factor’. It should be noted the judgment was given at a time before the courts generally adopted the now standard one-third discount for guilty plea. The comment made by this court in R v Barry Summers must be read in this light. Although this court in Chow Yuen Fai recognised that in exceptional cases a discount of more than one-third may be given for a timely plea, the court in fact had(has?) affirmed the sufficiency of the one-third discount for(in?) a guilty plea which is regarded as the ‘high-water mark’. In the case of HKSAR v Ng Ngok Wai [2008] HKLRD 546, a case of indecent assault on underaged girls, having considered that although the plea obviated the need for the victims to go through the trauma of testifying in court, was not persuaded to further reduce the sentence beyond the usual one-third discount for the guilty plea.”

And, ultimately, in the case of Lee Kwok Wai, the Court of Appeal “do not see any exceptional circumstances to justify a further discount”.

Further, in the case of HKSAR v KKK, the Court of Appeal said:

“Whilst we do not discourage judges from giving some extra discount for that factor, it must nonetheless be remembered that in other jurisdictions there is no standard one-third discount regardless of circumstances as there is in this jurisdiction and, further, in this case the proven fact of a pregnancy and an abortion resulting from one of the rapes as well as the fact of similar complaints by the sisters, rendered convictions inevitable, so the additional discount warranted must be slim.”

The 1st count took place on an unknown date in 2014, when X was living in Shenzhen, and the defendant was visiting family during a weekend. She was then 13 or 14 years old, and her first menstruation had not started. The defendant pushed her onto the bed and removed her clothing. She struggled but was overpowered. The defendant, without wearing a condom, raped her, and she felt pain. After the incident, she saw blood coming out from her vagina. This suggests a tear of her hymen, and her virginity was taken away.

I adopt a starting point of 12 years and, for your plea, I reduce it to 8 years. However, no additional discount would be given to you for sparing her giving evidence. As the recording and photograph taken by her, as well as the forensic examination on her, are cogent evidence against you, your conviction is inevitable and your plea is only a realisation of the reality.

The 2nd and 3rd counts took place on an occasion when she came to Hong Kong to visit you, when she was not yet permitted to reside in Hong Kong. She was then between 13 or 14 and 15 or 16. After being raped by you once, she went to bed.

After some time, you removed her clothing again and raped her again. On this second occasion, her menstrual period came, and blood was coming out from her private part. You realised this, but ignored it, and continued to penetrate your penis into her vagina. She struggled, but to no avail. You had no respect for her dignity at all.

I adopt a starting point of 10 years for the 2nd count, and reduce it to 6 years and 8 months for your plea. No additional discount.

For the 3rd count, I took a starting point of 12 years and reduce it to 8 for your plea. Likewise, no additional discount. The starting point for the 3rd count is higher than the 2nd count, because it was committed shortly after the 2nd count, and committed despite realising that her period had come.

The 4th and the 5th count took place on an unknown day between September 2016 and May 2020. By then, she had already successfully applied to come to Hong Kong on the strength of a one-way permit. She was between 16 to 20 years old.

At that time, she was sharing a bedroom with a bunk bed in Yuen Long with you. While she was sleeping on the upper bunk bed, you climbed up onto her bed and raped her. After penetrating your penis into her vagina for a while, you inserted your penis into her anus, causing great pain to her. She struggled immediately. You pulled out your penis from her anus, but continued penetrating her vagina. No condom was used.

For the 4th count, I adopt a starting point of 10 years and reduce it to 6 years and 8 months for your plea.

For the 5th count, same starting point as the 4th and down to 6 years and 8 months for plea. No additional discount.

The 6th count took place at the same timeframe as the 4th and the 5th. On this occasion, she came back home from school, and you were alone at home. You pushed her onto the lower bunkbed and removed all her clothing. You penetrated your penis into her vagina while she kept struggling. You slapped her face, pulled her hair, and squeezed her hands and thighs. Hence, she stopped struggling, as she did not want to be hit any more. After the incident, her face was still red and there were bruises on her face and thighs even after a few days. You did not wear a condom.

For this count, I adopt 12 years as starting point and reduce it to 8 years for your plea. No additional discount.

The 7th count took place in the Yuen Long flat as well. It was during the Easter break between March 2017 to May 2020, when her mother took the younger brother for a visit to relatives in China. During that period of time, you forced her to sleep with you on the double bed shared by the mother and the younger brother.

On a day in that period, she had a fever and slept on the double bed after she got the medication. You raped her and she was feeling so unwell that she could not recall how the incident ended. You raped her when she was sick and helpless.

I adopt a starting point of 10 years and reduce it to 6 years and 8 months for your plea. No additional discount.

The 8th count also in Yuen Long flat between September 2017 and July 2020. On this occasion, she was suffering from a fever and urticaria. She was taking a rest in her upper bunkbed when you raped her.

She told you that she was unwell. You ignored her condition. When you were asked by her as to why you insist to rape her when she was unwell, disgustingly, you said this. You said, “You felt warm and comfortable when you had the penile penetration.” She felt so unwell that she did not recall how the incident ended.

I again adopt 10 years as a starting point and reduce it to 6 years and 8 months for the plea. No additional discount.

The 9th count took place between March and April 2020. By then, the family had moved to a flat in Shek Kip Mei. X had her own room. On this occasion, she was sleeping at her room in the morning. You sneaked into her room and locked the door, after her mother went out for work. You raped her and stopped when her younger brother tried to open the locked door. The younger brother was having a fever and was not sure whether he caught Covid and he want to tell the victim.

I adopt a starting point of 8 years and reduce it to 5 years and 4 months. There is no additional discount.

The 10th count took place between 2 July 2021 and 17 February 2023. On this occasion, only the two of you were at home. You went into her room and raped her. During this attack, you squeezed her breasts and kissed and licked her nipples. She struggled and resisted but met with your anger and questioned why she refused to comply with your request every time. You further forcibly scratched her breasts, which caused a lot of pain to her breasts. You did not wear a condom.

After the incident, she saw three scratches or laceration marks on her breasts and chest area, and one of these marks was bleeding. She took photos of her breasts and chest area and saved them on her phone.

I adopt a starting point of 12 years and reduce it to 8 years for your plea. No additional discount.

The 11th count took place on 23 January 2023. It was the Lunar New Year holidays between 23 January 2023 and 29 January 2023. By then, X was 22 years old. Her mother and younger brother went to China for the festival holidays. She realised that you would take this opportunity to sexually abuse her. Therefore, she placed her phone in the gap of her bed with a view to record evidence.

On 23 January 2023, after the mother and the younger brother left home for China, you went into her room and asked her to clean her private parts and brush her teeth, before leaving the room. She immediately turned on the audio recording function of her phone. After cleaning, you went into her room and grabbed her hands towards your penis and forced her to masturbate you for a couple of minutes. After you removed her clothing, you laid on top of her with your face facing her thighs.

Following this, you placed your penis on her face and forced her to perform oral sex while you kissed and licked her private parts. You also inserted your fingers into her vagina. You then raped her till you ejaculated.

After you left, she ended the audio recording and saved it in her phone.

I adopt 12 years as the starting point in view of the perverted conduct and reduce it to 8 years for plea. No additional discount.

The 12th count took place between 14 February 2024 and 19 February 2024, which is shortly after the Lunar New Year holidays in 2024. Again, X’s mother went to China for the holidays. On an unknown day in that period in the morning, you raped her till you ejaculate outside her body.

I adopt 8 years as the starting point and reduce it to 5 years and 4 months. No additional discount.

The 13th count took place in the early morning on 24 March 2024. On this occasion, after the mother left home for work, you entered her room and raped her. You ejaculated outside her body.

Again, I took 8 years as my starting point and reduce it to 5 years and 4 months for your plea. No additional discount.

14th count took place in the morning of 31 March 2024, one week after the 13th count. Again, you entered her room and raped her after the mother left home for work. You ejaculated on her belly.

I adopt 8 years as a starting point and reduce it to 5 years and 4 months for plea. No additional discount.

The 15th count took place on 7 April 2024, again, one week after the 14th count. In the early hours between 6 to 6.30 am on that day, you sneaked into her bedroom. You took off your clothing as well as removing her undergarments. You slept next to her and grabbed her left leg. You pulled her left leg across your body and made her to sit on the top of your penis. You then repeatedly penetrate your penis into her vagina. You also inserted your hands into her upper garments and squeezed her breasts. She struggled but was overpowered. You then pushed her onto the bed and continued your penile penetration for about 10 minutes. You did not wear a condom.

After the incident, she was very upset and went sleeping. She woke up at around 11 am and reported the matter to police as she could not endure it any more. She was sent to hospital for forensic examination and your DNA and semen were found on the various parts of her private parts.

I take 10 years as the starting point and reduce it to 6 years and 8 months. No additional discount.

My next task is to decide how these individual sentences should run in order to pay regard to the totality principle.

I have said earlier, when you first appeared before me, I was seriously considering whether you should be put away for an indeterminate term. And, for that purpose, I have called for background and psychological reports on you.

The clinical psychologist opined that:

“With reference to information available in the current assessment and international actuarial assessment tools that take into account historical and dynamic risk factors, your overall risk of sexual recidivism was assessed to fall in the lower end of moderate range.”

Further, he said:

“There was currently no major evidence suggesting deviant sexual interests, such as paedophilic tendencies in the defendant.”

In light of this, I do not think that you are such a danger to the community that you should be made the subject of an indeterminate sentence.

Having said that, I note the psychologist in his report, paragraph 19:

“Currently, your limited disclosure, inconsistency in your own narrative and with summary of facts, inability to elaborate on what reflections to be made, grievances towards your family members’ account, and trivialisation of facts and impact on your daughter combine to give an impression of superficial remorse at this juncture. Ongoing assessment to evaluate his risk of sexual recidivism and further elucidate and ascertain psychological factors proximal to offending behaviour is considered highly crucial.”

Further, according to the interview that the psychologist had with you, he opined:

“You tend to present yourself in a positive light by repeatedly emphasising you were being frank. However, vague, evasive and brief responses were noted extensively during the assessment, despite extensive probing. Inconsistence were noted in his narrative. While he displayed social smiles and appeared cooperative at the early stages of the assessment, he notably become irritable when details of his history of violence and the index offences were enquired. He became blunt and passive-aggressive in such instances. There were multiple instances in which you sneered when the summary of facts was point out as you alleged the details documented were exaggerated. You at one point displayed dismissiveness towards the present psychological assessment and questioned the need for the enquiries and the purpose of risk assessment and asked the assessment should be terminated.”

As I have said earlier, your plea may be just a realisation of the inevitable convictions if there is a trial, rather than genuine remorse. I noted you remained silent upon arrest and caution and you engaged a lawyer to represent you during a video-recorded interview, when you refused to answer the questions put to you in the interview.

The whole family was very scared of you, as you were a very bad-tempered and violent person, who often hit the victim, the mother and younger brother. The victim was forbidden to visit the Mainland China with her mother during holidays, on the pretendence that she had to stay in Hong Kong to cook for you, as well as doing other household chores. She was in fact severely hit by you upon her return from China on one occasion.

Whenever she mentioned that she wanted to visit China with her mother, you become furious and threw a tantrum at her. When you threw a tantrum, you would hold a knife to scare the family and break objects at home. You had also told her that since you had given her life, you could make her live or die.

As a result, the whole family was terrified of you and dared not resist your demands.

You often made enquiries with the victim as to when she was having her menstrual period. During the safe period, you would often ejaculate inside her body when you raped her. And on occasions you ejaculated inside her body outside the safe period, you would give her oral contraceptive pills. She took the pills as she was afraid of getting pregnant.

Two bottles of male erectile ointment and two bottles of lubricants were found in your locked drawer upon your arrest. They were similar to those you had forced the victim to purchase for you. In fact, the victim produced proof that on 23 September 2023, she purchased male erectile ointment and female arousal serum on Taobao. She initially refused to use these products, but you become very angry and started scolding her. In fact, you had applied one of these products on her during the sexual assaults in Shek Kip Mei flat.

You forced the victim to have sex with you. You determined when you want it and how you want it. You took your daughter as sexual toys to do with as you wished, completely indifferent to the pain and suffering, both physical and psychological, that you caused her.

You did not have an ounce of kindness to your daughter. You did not restrain your perverted sexual desire and let it run wild over your daughter, when you knew full well that she was too scared to resist you. Yet, it was demonstrated that you can control yourself, as you did desist in sexually assaulting your daughter on an occasion when your son alerted you by trying to open the locked door. You were simply careless of your daughter’s feeling. The victim was led through a life in hell for a decade since the age of 13 or 14.

Had she not picked up her courage on 7 April 2024 and reported you to the police, the sexual abuse on her would have continued. This can be easily inferred from the frequencies of the four rapes in the year of 2024.

In HKSAR v KKK, the learned judge at first instance passed a total sentence of 23 years on the biological father who raped his two daughters when they were between 10 to 14 years old on six occasions in a period of four years.

On appeal, the Court of Appeal said:

“We are satisfied the totality which the judge imposed was manifestly excessive. That, primarily, is because a sentence of 23 years’ imprisonment leaves little room for more serious situations, which is not to detract from the gravity of the applicant’s conduct as revealed by the present charges. If 23 years’ imprisonment were appropriate for the first six offences after pleas, then insufficient realistic room is left for the sentences one would have realistically to contemplate for these offences after trial or for a greater series of like offences or for a situation which combines both, that is to say, conviction after trial for a greater series of like offences.”

However, it is to be noted in that case:

“The Summary of Facts, which was the basis of the applicant’s pleas, is relatively sparse as to the circumstances of and surrounding the offences. This stands in stark contrast to the detail revealed by the victim impact statements of Y and Z and by the psychological reports in respect of all three girls. The relevance of these differences, for the purpose of the present exercise, is that extremely grave though the conduct is as revealed by the Summary of Facts, the panoply of degradation and abuse revealed by those statements and the psychological reports, if those revelations be true, would take the seriousness of the applicant’s conduct within this category of offence to a level of awfulness all of its own.”

Later, the Court of Appeal said in that case:

“We mention these additional allegations of the grossest possible behaviour not to judge the accuracy or otherwise of them, but in order to gauge for sentencing purposes where in the wide range of sentences available for the offence of rape the facts disclosed by the summary - as opposed to the facts disclosed by these various statements - fell.”

The Court of Appeal said:

“Had the full range of alleged conduct been charged and proved, that full range would have added most substantially to the sentences warranted by the present Summary of Facts.”

The Court of Appeal, like the judge in the first instance, are bound by the Summary of Facts admitted by the applicant in that case. The Court of Appeal substitute 18 years for the 23 years passed by the judge at first instance.

The Summary of Facts admitted by the defendant in the present case are much more serious than the facts admitted by the applicant in HKSAR v KKK. As I have said on the last occasion when the defendant appeared before me, this is one of the worst cases of rape by a biological father on her daughter, if not the worst.

I have before me a psychological victim impact report on the victim dated 10 July 2026. She was diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and depression by a private psychiatrist in March 2025, about a year after she had reported the defendant.

She received clinical psychological services since 11 June 2025. The initial clinical presentation was that she reported experiencing frequent, distressing, and intrusive flashbacks of the alleged sexual abuse and rape. She described experiencing transient dissociative episodes at times, characterised by periods of going mindless and momentary disconnection from her surroundings. She remained preoccupied with worries about possibility of running into her father on the street, alongside worries regarding the upcoming legal and court proceedings.

She also presented recurring negative cognitions regarding the traumatic experiences. She exhibited intense fear regarding potential contact with father. This fear manifested as significant phobic and anxiety reactions upon encountering any male individuals on the street who resembled her father. She held a strong belief that, upon his release from police custody, her father will seek violent retribution against her.

Consequently, she presented with marked hypervigilant behaviour and startled responses. She tried to avoid encountering any male individuals or stimulant reminding her of her father. She even considered leaving Hong Kong in the future to ensure her safety for the long run. She suffered from depressive mood episodes, characterised by persistent low mood, insomnia, and poor appetite.

She reported a reduction in anxiety and a stabilisation of her mood following the initial use of psychiatric medication. However, she noted ongoing distress regarding adverse side effects of medication.

Despite enduring significant psychological distress, she demonstrated psychological resilience by actively attempting to maintain her daily routines, which preserved largely by her occupational and social functioning. She suppressed her negative emotion and distress in front of her immediate family. She identified her family and a core group of close friends as major source of support.

Based on this assessment, the psychologist opined that the victim met the diagnostic criteria for the following condition at the time of the initial assessment, namely PTSD and major depressive disorder.

Over the course of the clinical psychological treatment in seven clinical sessions, she has demonstrated measurable progress in recovery. Notwithstanding this overall progress, she experienced a clinical relapse of her depressive symptomatology between late 2025 and early 2026, lasting several months. This setback was triggered by contact and interaction with her parental extended family. During this period, she presented with social withdrawal and lack of motivation.

The psychiatrist strongly recommended that she continue to receive regular clinical psychological service. Further trauma-based therapeutic intervention is clinically indicated to manage her residual PTSD symptoms and to prevent future affective relapses.

As said by the Court of Appeal in Tsang Chiu Tak, deterrent sentences are needed to redress the grievance suffered by the victims and their families in sexual assault cases.

I am of the view that a total sentence of 22 years is not a day too long for what you have done to your biological daughter in a decade.

I order that the sentence on the 2nd and the 3rd count to run concurrent but 4 years of that concurrent total shall run consecutively to the remainder concurrently with the sentence on the 1st count, making a total for these three counts 12 years’ imprisonment.

The sentences on Counts 4 to 8 shall run concurrent, but that 4 years of that concurrent total shall run consecutively to, and the remainder concurrent with, the total of 12 years imposed in relation to Counts 1 to 3, making a total of 16 years for Counts 1 to 8.

The sentences on Counts 9 to 11 shall run concurrent, but that 4 years of that concurrent total shall run consecutively to, the remainder concurrent with, the total of 16 years imposed in relation to Counts 1 to 8, making a total of 20 years for Counts 1 to 11.

The sentences on Counts 12 to 14 shall run concurrent, but that 2 years of that concurrent total shall run consecutively to, the remainder concurrently with, the total of 20 years imposed in relation to Counts 1 to 11. This makes a total of 22 years’ imprisonment for Counts 1 to 15.

I correct myself. The sentences on Counts 12 to 15 shall run concurrently, but that 2 years of that concurrent total shall run consecutively to, and the remainder concurrent with, the total of 20 years’ imprisonment in relation to Counts 1 to 11.