香港特別行政區 訴 許銳生

On 25 August 2026, Deputy Judge Wong Si-lai in the Court of First Instance handed down judgment in HKSAR v Hui Rui Sheng (許銳生), HCMA 441/2025, dismissing the appellant's appeal against both conviction and sentence for two counts of indecent assault under s.122(1) of the Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200). The respondent was represented by Senior Public Prosecutor Mr Li Hei-chit and Public Prosecutor Mr Li Tsz-kin.

The appellant, a 66-year-old businessman, was convicted after trial in Kowloon City Magistracy of assaulting his secretary assistant (PW1) on the evening of 8 July 2024. PW1 alleged that during a car journey from a dinner in Tsim Sha Tsui to the appellant's cigar lounge in Central, the appellant embraced her, reached inside her V-neck dress to squeeze her right breast twice, and ran his hand up her inner thigh. Upon arrival, he again pressed his body against her back and embraced her waist outside the lounge entrance. CCTV footage (P6) corroborated the second incident.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal against conviction. First, he argued that PW2's evidence (PW1's boyfriend, who received a WhatsApp message from PW1 that night) was wrongly admitted as a "recent complaint" because it lacked sufficient detail to compare with PW1's testimony. Second, he contended that the magistrate failed to address inconsistencies between PW1 and the defence witnesses (DW1, the bodyguard, and DW2, the finance VP). Third, he argued the magistrate wrongly found PW1 had no motive to fabricate.

The court held that: (1) PW2's evidence was properly treated as a recent complaint; the magistrate understood its limited purpose and the alleged inconsistencies (whether the assault occurred "inside" or "outside" the lounge, and whether "multiple" assaults occurred) were minor and did not undermine PW1's credibility (§58); (2) the magistrate gave detailed reasoning for accepting PW1's account over DW1's, noting the glass partition was semi-transparent, DW1 was not continuously watching the back seat, and DW2 was not present during either incident (§§63-64); (3) there was no evidence of motive to fabricate, as the appellant chose not to testify and DW2's criticism of PW1's work was purely subjective (§§67-68).

On sentence, the court rejected the argument that a community service order or fine was appropriate. The appellant showed no genuine remorse, having consistently denied the allegations. The employer-employee relationship and the confined space of the car were aggravating factors. The 8-week concurrent sentence was upheld.

For practitioners, this case confirms that recent complaint evidence need not mirror the complainant's testimony in every detail to be admissible, and that appellate courts will give weight to a magistrate's reasoned analysis of witness inconsistencies in one-on-one sexual assault cases.