HKSAR v. Chan Man Tik
|
DCCC531/2010 IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONGSPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION CRIMINAL CASE NO. 531 OF 2010 ----------------------
----------------------
--------------------- Reasons for Sentence --------------------- 1.The defendant pleaded guilty to four charges of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 13. The Admitted Facts reveals that the victim was born on 1 August 1998. She was at the material time 11 and is still 11 years old. The defendant was 16 at the material time. 2.In September 2009, the victim acquainted the defendant through internet. They soon became lovers. The defendant was aware of the victim’s age. In December 2009 and January 2010, the defendant had consensual sexual intercourse with the victim on four occasions at the defendant’s home. On 5 March 2010, the victim was reported missing by her mother. When the victim was subsequently interviewed by a police officer the sexual relationship of the defendant and the victim was revealed. The defendant was arrested on 10 March 2010 and he admitted the offences. 3.The defendant is now 17 years of age. He has no criminal record though he was cautioned by a superintendent once in 2007 for giving false information to the police. The defendant came from a single parent family, indeed a sad family, and not surprisingly his academic performance was unsatisfactory and he left school before he could complete Form 4. Thereafter he had been working unsteadily at restaurants and hair salon holding junior positions. His last job was a junior in a hair salon. He is now living with his mother who has a mood disorder problem. I have also received quite a number of letters of mitigation in favour of the defendant and I have considered all these letters. 4.In view of the young age of the defendant, I called for various reports to consider the appropriate sentence. The reports are now ready. It is noted that the defendant admitted during his interviews that in his gatherings with some friends of dubious characters he inhaled the vapour of Ice, indirectly so to speak, when his friends were taking dangerous drugs. It is also noted that he expressed his remorse to the Probation officer and the interviewing officer of the Correctional Services Department. I accept that he is remorseful. 5.As the Probation officer observed in paragraph 24 of his report, “Taking into consideration that the accused had poor work habit and led an unregulated life pattern, his weak moral sense and high vulnerability to attach to dubious peers and under their detrimental influences coupled with the consideration that his mother suffering from depression was not capable to render aversive supervision on the accused, it is doubtful if the accused can rehabilitate in an open setting. Furthermore it is doubtful if the accused is really drug-free. Apparently character training in a disciplinary setting may be more effective to rehabilitate the accused. Hence Probation order is not recommended.” 6.Pausing here that I would accept that the accused is a drug-free person at this stage. 7.The Probation officer is also of the view that community service order, which is mainly work-based, may not be an effective means to reform the accused and is thus not recommended. 8.Reports from the Correctional Services Department also find the defendant an immature person with little sense of remorse noted on him. In order to strengthen his law-abiding concept, a period of short-term disciplinary training coupled with statutory supervision is considered beneficial to him. However, the defendant was found unfit for detention in Detention Centre because of his poor exercise tolerance. On the other hand, he is considered suitable for detention in Rehabilitation Centre and Training Centre. 9.The offences are very serious, the victim is of very young age. She was simply too young to give a true consent for her relationship with the defendant who should be mature enough to know about it. On the other hand, the defendant was 16 at the material times. In my judgment rehabilitation is more important than punishment in this case. In view of the immature character and his loose lifestyle, I share the view of the Probation officer that the defendant is in need of character training in a disciplinary setting which is more effective than a Probation order or Community Service order for the rehabilitation of the defendant. Since the defendant is unfit for detention in Detention Centre and in view of his plea of guilty for which a Training Centre order may be too harsh for him, I find detention in Rehabilitation Centre the best course for the defendant to undergo his rehabilitation. 10.I therefore sentence the defendant for all the four charges to detention in Rehabilitation Centre.
|