香港特別行政區 訴 楊孟羲

On 28 September 2026, Deputy High Court Judge Cheung Kit-yi handed down judgment in HKSAR v Yeung Mang-hei (HCMA 186/2025), dismissing the appellant's appeals against both conviction and sentence for two counts of outraging modesty under section 122(1) of the Crimes Ordinance. The respondent was represented by Senior Public Prosecutor Cheng Wing-yu; the appellant by Senior Counsel Tse Chi-ho and Wong Wing-man, instructed by Cheung Liu & Co.

The appellant, a serving police officer who had joined after four or five attempts at the Inspectorate, was convicted after trial of two indecent assaults: one against a female constable (X) in a Yuen Long Police Station corridor on 9 September 2024, and another against a female Inspector (Y) at the Police College in November 2023, while she was bending to retie her shoelace during a drill break. Each touching lasted about one second, described by both complainants as a left-to-right sweep across the middle of the buttocks using the back of a hand. The magistrate imposed five weeks' imprisonment on each count, consecutive, totalling ten weeks.

The appellant advanced three grounds of appeal against conviction: that the magistrate wrongly excluded accidental contact by equipment (gloves, cap, gun holster, rifle); that X's subjective identification of "the back of a hand" through clothing was unreliable; and that the magistrate failed properly to analyse the cause of contact in Y's case. On sentence, he argued five weeks per count was manifestly excessive, that too much weight was given to his police status, and that totality was not properly considered.

The Court's holding

The court conducted a full retrial in accordance with HKSAR v Hui Lai Ki (2024) 27 HKCFAR 265, and dismissed all grounds. On conviction, the court found:

(1) The magistrate's analysis of the equipment belt was thorough. Judge Cheung personally examined exhibit P7 and observed the appellant demonstrating his walking posture. The gun holster at 3 o'clock is rigidly fixed; even if the gloves and cap at 4-5 o'clock swung outward, the appellant's elbows would extend further, meaning any equipment contact would have required deliberate proximity that the corridor's layout did not necessitate (§19-20).

(2) X's perception of being touched by the fleshy back of a hand (not knuckles) through thin summer clothing and fitted cotton trousers was reliable evidence of her bodily sensation, consistent with settled authority that such perceptions are admissible and the magistrate was entitled to accept them (§27-29). The complainant's later statement about sensing body temperature through two layers of clothing, though not previously mentioned, was a natural elaboration and did not undermine her credibility (§31-33).

(3) For Y, the rifle butt could not have made contact unknowingly. The appellant himself testified he always "respects the gun" by cupping it in his right hand with fingers forming a U-shape whenever the sling is loosened, and keeps the sling taut otherwise. Any contact by the rigid plastic butt would therefore have been felt by him (§40). The two-to-three-metre passageway rendered deliberate proximity unnecessary, and Y's evidence that the touch was soft, not hard, eliminated the rifle (§37-39).

On sentence, the court rejected the complaint that the magistrate over-emphasised the appellant's police status. Applying HKSAR v Hui Man Tai (CACC 334/2007) and Secretary for Justice v Yu Chun Hung [2022] 1 HKLRD 97, current officers who breach the law undermine public confidence in the force, and deterrent weight must take priority (§53). The court further held, following 律政司司長 訴 植嘉軒 [2025] 1 HKLRD 713, that even without direct team-level trust, a serving officer owes a broader trust to the Force not to disgrace it, and that loss of career carries virtually no mitigating weight (§50-51). The second conviction also disentitled the appellant to first-offender treatment on the first count (§52).

Why it matters

Practitioners defending or prosecuting touching cases in disciplined-forces settings should expect courts to treat employer-level trust as an aggravating feature, and to give limited weight to career-collapse arguments. The judgment also confirms that complainants' tactile perceptions through clothing, including finer distinctions like body temperature, remain admissible and may ground identification of the touching body part, provided the analysis of equipment-alternative explanations is rigorous.