HKSAR v. Lee Man Tim

DCCC 991/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 991 OF 2010

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

Charge and facts

1.The Defendant pleads guilty to unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 13 years.  He came to know the girl through a chat line of the internet.  In late October 2009, he first met her and had frequent contacts. On or about 30 November 2009, they went to a villa in Shamshuipo and had sex with her consent.  He did not use condom but ejaculated outside her body.  On 9 December 2009 he surrendered himself to the police and admitted the offence. He said he had not used a condom and ejaculated outside her body.   

Personal background and mitigation

2.The Defendant is 19 years of age.  He was 18 at the time of the offence.  He has a clear record.  After F.5, he had completed a 1-year commerce and accounting course in IVE.  His family runs a logistic company.  He helps with both the delivery and clerical work. 

3.The girl’s statement revealed that she had been a Missing Person in the police file on and off.  She was a student and lived with her parents.  She had had sex with 2 other males before.  The defence submits that it strongly suggests that she is being sexually precocious.  There is no evidence of grooming.  There is no sign that she has been or will be psychologically affected by the present event. 

Sentencing examples

4.This is a serious offence which often sees a deterrent sentence even for a first offender.  The message has been clear and loud that the young female must be protected.  There are no sentencing guidelines. 

5.In R v Cheung Hon-ki CACC 28/1996, the applicant was 30 years of age.  He had sex with a girl aged 12 on two consecutive days.  He was sentenced to a concurrent term of 18 months for each charge on a guilty plea.  However, the starting point was not identified in the first instance or on appeal.   

6.In HKSAR v Lau Chi-cheung CACC 427/2007, the applicant was 22 years of age, a student.  The girl was 12 and was sexually precocious as seen from her messages on the internet.  The age difference was considered a weighty factor in sentencing.  The Court of Appeal revised the starting point from 3 years to 2 years.

7.In HKSAR v Wu Chi-kin DCCC 521/2009, the defendant was 23 years of age.  The girl was 12.  He had known the girl’s family before and then become her suitor.  He worked as a waiter and had a divorce.  The court took a starting point of 2 years.

8.In HKSAR v Li Ming-kit DCCC 1340/2009, the defendant was 24 years of age, a packaging designer.  The girl was 12.  She came to know him through a friend.  She became a missing person for some time.  During that period, the offence was committed.  There was no evidence that she was sexually precocious.  The court took a starting point of 27 months.       

9.In HKSAR v Cheung Man-ho DCCC 4/2010, the defendant was 17 years of age.  The girl was 12.  She was seen to have some degree of sexual precocity.  He had sex with her on two occasions.  He was sentenced to the Rehabilitation Centre. 

10.In HKSAR v Nip Ho-fai DCCC 603/2010, the defendant was 21 years of age.  The girl was 12.  They called each other little husband and little wife.  He was not a mature person.  On the contrary, the court found it very likely that she was more sexually mature than he.  He was about to start a degree course in business administration.  The court sentenced him to community service.   

Sentencing this Defendant

11.I have called for training centre and rehabilitation centre reports. Both places are recommended.  I find the training centre too harsh.  A rehabilitation centre order can strike a proper balance between the interest of the community and the Defendant.  This shall be his sentence.