HKSAR v. Ng Ying Chi

DCCC 1006/2012

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 1006 OF 2012

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.Defendant pleaded guilty to three counts of indecent assault on another person, contrary to section 122(1) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200, and a 4th charge of indecent conduct towards a child under the age of 16, contrary to section 146(1) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap 200. The dates of the offence are June, July, August or September and December 2011 respectively. The offences took place over a period of six months between June and December last year.

2.The facts are that when the defendant had an opportunity on those four occasions, he would lure the female victim to a quiet spot at his home and committed these four offences.  This victim was an 8‑year-old neighbour and friend of his young son.  The two families have been neighbours for many years.  The defendant admitted that he took off the victim’s shorts and underpants and rubbed her private parts with his hand.  On each occasion and on the last occasion, he masturbated whilst he did this. 

3.The victim told a social worker in August 2012 that on each occasion, the defendant would use his penis to touch her lower private parts.  Obviously, after she told the social worker about the assaults, the defendant was arrested.  When he was arrested, he under caution admitted these offences.  In a subsequent video record of interview, he made a full admission.

4.The defendant is 48 years old, married with two children.  He had a clear record.  He told the police that he committed these offences because he could not control himself.  

5.After the plea on the last occasion, I adjourned this case for a background report, a psychologist’s report on the defendant and a victim impact assessment report.  I also received on the last occasion letters of mitigation from the defendant’s family.  That includes his sisters and his wife.  He, the defendant, also wrote a letter of apology to the victim and her family.

6.I have received all the reports I called for today.  I will not repeat the details of the report but from the background report, I can see that the defendant has worked hard to support his family.  He is a responsible husband and was a filial son to his mother who passed away not long ago.  He is ashamed of his misdeeds and very sorry for the harm he has brought to the victim, her family and his own family.  His wife has forgiven him and asked the court for leniency.

7.As for the psychological report, the psychologist detects a psychological problem and diagnoses the defendant as having paedophilia.  He requires psychological treatment targeting the deviant sexual interest and attitude he has.  He requires treatment targeting behavioural control.  This treatment is highly recommended.  The psychologist estimates that his risk of re-offending is moderate.  That is why treatment is very necessary.

8.Lastly, I have considered the contents of the victim impact assessment report.  It makes for very sad reading.  This 8‑year-old victim, now 9, has suffered trauma.  She is manifesting a range of post-traumatic stress symptoms and is very vulnerable.  She requires support, love and care from her family or those that care for her but, unfortunately, cannot and will not.  That is because she comes from a family that has effectively rejected her, even more so now after she has reported this abuse. It is tragic that her own mother is so ignorant and selfish.  The trauma she has suffered as a result of this abuse is now exacerbated by her family abandoning her.  She lives in a small-group home with her foster parent.

9.The psychologist suggests she be made a ward of the Director of Social Welfare.  The conclusion is that she has suffered a huge impact as a result of the sexual abuse by the defendant.  She requires long-term psychological treatment.

10.There is no guideline or tariff for sexual abuse cases against children or young persons, but the courts must impose substantial sentences to deter and punish sexual offenders that target young children.  The defendant’s best mitigation is his plea of guilty.  The courts must protect children, deter others and reflect the public opinion and abhorrence of such offences. 

11.I refer myself to the authority of HKSAR v Chan Ching Ho [2000] 3 HKLRD 476.  This court will also take into account that there has been a breach of trust by the defendant as a neighbour and the father of the victim’s friend.  This court will also take into account the degree of indecency in each charge and the impact and effect it has had on this victim.  Other relevant factors will include her age, the risk of the defendant re-offending and the number of offences committed against the same victim.

12.In considering the relevant factors, I took into account the authority of HKSAR v Chow Yuen Fai [2010] 1 HKC 181 as well as HKSAR v Lee Hon Wah [2011] 4 HKLRD 319.

13.I have also considered the facts of each indecent charge, the defendant’s plea, his previous clear record, the details in each report I have received and the conclusion of the two psychologists where both the victim and the defendant is concerned.  I have taken into account the fact the victim has been spared the ordeal of coming to court by his plea of guilty.

14.From all these above factors, I will take a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment for each offence.  The defendant is entitled to a discount of one-third for his plea.  That is the norm and I see no reason to increase that discount.  For Charge 1, the defendant is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.  Charge 2, the defendant is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.  Of these 2 years, 3 months will be consecutive to Charge 1. 

15.For Charge 3, the defendant is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.  Of these 2 years, 3 months will be consecutive to Charge 1.

16.Charge 4, the defendant is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.  Of these 2 years, 3 months will be consecutive to Charge 1. 

17.The balance of each sentence will be concurrent to Charge 1.  Defendant is sentenced to a total of 2 years and 9 months’ imprisonment. 

18.I order that psychological treatment be arranged for the defendant whilst he is serving the sentence.

19.I make an additional recommendation that the Department of Justice follow up the psychologists’ recommendation and recommend that the Social Welfare Department apply to make the victim a ward of the Director of the Social Welfare Department for her well-being and recovery.