HKSAR v. WONG WANG YIP

DCCC439/2010

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 439 OF 2010

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

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

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

Reasons for Sentence

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

1.  The defendant has pleaded guilty to the following charges.

2.  Charge 2 and Charge 3 were both unlawful sexual intercourse charges with a girl under the age of 13, Girl A. The dates of these offences were 5 January and 6 January 2010. She was aged 12 at the time.

3.  Charges 5 and 7 are unlawful sexual intercourse charges with a girl under the age of 16, Girl B, who was 15 years at the time. The dates of those two offences were 8 January and 10 January 2010.

4.  Charge 8 is an unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 16, Girl C. She was 15 years old at the time and the date of the offence was July 2009.

5.  Charge 11 was an unlawful sexual intercourse offence with a girl under the age of 16, Girl E. The girl was aged 15 years old at the time and the date of the offence was August 2009.

6.  Charge 12 was an offence of possession of child pornography, namely seven photographs found on the defendant’s telephone. They were all of Girl A.

7.  I will repeat what are the relevant facts of this case and of the four girls involved.

8.  Girl A was 12 years old when she contacted a “Sister Yan” on the internet. This “Sister Yan” professed to be an agent for compensation daters and advertised that girls could earn money as an escort.

9.  In reality, “Sister Yan” was the defendant posing as an agent with the intention of luring girls to sign up and provide details. PW1 did send her details and the defendant called her, posing as a customer. This led to two sexual encounters on a stairwell of a building, one day apart. Despite promises, Girl A was not paid any money by the defendant.

10.  Girl B was a 15-year-old, who, like Girl A, contacted an agent she saw advertising online. She was told she could make as much as $50,000 a month serving customers. Again, clearly the defendant pretended to be this agent. One of the conditions was that the Girl B would have to pay the customer $1,000 in advance, and this girl did pay the defendant $1,200. The defendant had sexual intercourse with Girl B on two occasions.

11.  Girl C was 15 years old when she met the defendant online as the defendant, not posing as anybody else. He invited her to be his compensation dating partner, but she refused. After some communication between them, she agreed to be his girlfriend. However, she did refuse to have sexual intercourse with him, saying that she was only 15. but eventually she was persuaded by the defendant.

12.  She describes him in her victim assessment report as a sweet talker. He clearly wore her down until she agreed to have sex. After that, he took photographs of her naked with a phone camera.

13.  Girl E met the defendant online sometime in 2009 as the defendant. The day after they met online they met in person, and on that day they had sexual intercourse in a stairwell in Lai Chi Kok.

14.  When the defendant was arrested, he made a full admission to the police, he cooperated, and in his record of interview admitted he opened an account online for a “Sister Yan”, portraying her as a fictitious agent to lure girls to sign up for compensation dating with the promise of earning good money.

15.  He admitted that he told Girl A that he would buy her gifts and pay her for sexual intercourse after five sexual encounters. He knew she was 12 years old. He admits he took photographs of her body knowing that she did not consent.

16.  He admits sexual intercourse with Girl B even though she was only 15. He admits taking photographs of her and at one stage threatened her. He admits he blackmailed her using these photographs, but no money was ever received.

17.  Clearly, this defendant has used the internet to either meet girls or later on set up a scheme to lure girls to sign up for compensation dating.

18.  He deceived them, he lied to them and he had sweet-talked them for his own sexual pleasure, knowing that they were young and underage.

19.  The courts have always been of the view that such young girls need protection from those that seek them out for sexual activities. Girls who are reaching sexual maturity need protection from themselves. They can be naïve, immature and, like in this case, easily led astray by the promise of money and gifts.

20.  The defendant is a young man of 22 years old. He looks young and is described by counsel as immature, but that is not a description I note used by either the probation officer or the psychologist who interviewed the defendant.

21.  I have heard mitigation put forward in full and defence counsel has tried his best to lay out the salient mitigating factors.

22.  As I have said, the defendant is 22 and has, until now, a clear record. He is an only child and the family relationship is close and satisfactory but maybe not very communicative. The defendant’s parents are shocked about this case, but remain very supportive.

23.  The defendant had an uneventful childhood, and he was an average student, completing Form 7. He did work, but was unemployed between June 2009 and January 2010.

24.  The defendant did have a steady girlfriend, but they split up in June 2009. This date seems to be significant as it was from about that time that he used the internet to search for dates and girlfriends.

25.  He obviously soon realised that he could find and trick girls who expected to be paid money for their companionship, but he could convince them to have sex.

26.  The defendant admits that he is obsessed with the internet world, which has proved to be an unhealthy obsession.

27.  He saw that the compensation dating scene was rife online, and sadly, he ultimately saw this as an easier way to meet girls and satisfy his sexual urge than the real world.

28.  He told the probation officer he wanted a girlfriend to be with and to have sex with. Clearly, he has let his sexual urges dominate his common sense.

29.  He admits he could not control himself even though he knew he might be arrested as all the girls were under age. He told the probation officer that he realised that he has acted in a disgusting, contemptuous way to girls who are immature, gullible and naïve.

30.  I am told that he is very remorseful and regrets the pain and trauma he has caused the victims. He can now see the pain he has caused his own parents and realises the family of those victims must be suffering too, and he is sincerely sorry. I do hope that is the truth.

31.  I did call for a psychologist’s report. The psychologist does not mince his words and has described the defendant as deceitful, manipulative, selfish and suffering from low esteem.

32.  From the facts of the case and the defendant’s actions, that description is fair. The sooner the defendant realises this, the sooner he can correct his ways.

33.  The psychologist was of the view that the defendant needs intimacy, but at the same time enjoys manipulating the victims. He sought intimacy from them, but at the same treated them as prostitutes, and says these girls were promiscuous.

34.  I considered the fact the doctor’s view was that he is not exhibiting any paedophilic tendency. He concludes that the family support will aid his rehabilitation and lower the risk of the defendant re-offending. He assesses the defendant to be a moderate risk of re-offending. The psychologist recommends psychological treatment with a particular focus on the defendant’s sexual attitude.

35.  I also called for two victim impact assessment reports on Girl A and Girl C. I have taken into account the contents, I will not repeat them.

36.  Where Girl C is concerned, the report concludes that there has been no long-term impact or significant trauma suffered.

37.  Where Girl A is concerned, it is a different matter. She was 12 years old at the time of the offences. She feels ashamed and angry, and disgusted with the whole affair. The report assesses there to have been a negative impact on her self identity and on her relationship with her family. Reading the report, it is clear she will take some time to recover from this ordeal.

38.  The contents of these reports are factors I will consider relevant.

39.  The other factors I consider relevant to sentence are the following.

40.  Firstly, the age difference between the defendant and the victims. There are 10 years difference between the defendant and Girl A, and 7 years difference between the defendant and the other victims.

41.  Secondly, it is an aggravating factor that on the facts the defendant set up false accounts to prey on girls and recruit them for sex. It was part of the thrill for the defendant to convince them to have sex, yet not follow through with his promise of money or gifts.

42.  I also take into account the fact that the defendant took photographs, firstly of Girl A, when she was not willing. He also took photographs of Girl C after he had convinced her to have sexual intercourse despite her initial refusal. He then went on to try and use these photographs against her.

43.  I have looked at the authority of the Secretary of Justice v Man Kwong Choi [2008] 5 HKLRD 519, where the Court of Appeal looked into the issue of child pornography. Looking at the photographs of Girl A, clearly they would fit into a level one category of that authority, the least serious. However, I will take into account the way that they were obtained. Such serious facts will merit a custodial sentence.

44.  There are no guidelines for offences of this nature, each case must be decided individually, but what I take into account in coming to starting points are the following: the facts of the case, the mitigation put forward, the defendant’s clear record, the letter of mitigation put forward by the defendant, the background report and psychologist’s reports and their contents, the victim impact reports, and the aggravating factors I have listed as pertinent.

45.  I have also take into account that the defendant, by pleading guilty, has spared these victims the ordeal of giving evidence in court.

Defendant, please stand up. For Charge 2, I find a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment appropriate; for Charge 3, I find a starting point of 3 years appropriate; Charge 5, I find a 2 year starting point is appropriate; for Charge 7, I find a 2 year starting point appropriate; for Charge 8, I find a starting point of 2 years and 6 months appropriate; for Charge 11, I find a starting point of 18 months appropriate; for Charge 12, I find a starting point of 12 months appropriate.

46.  The defendant has pleaded guilty and will be entitled to a discount of one-third.

47.  For Charge 2, the defendant will be sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment.

48.  For Charge 3, the defendant is sentenced to 2 years’ imprisonment. This will be served concurrently with Charge 2.

49.  For Charge 5, the defendant is sentenced to 1 year and 4 months; 6 months of this sentence will be consecutive to Charge 2, the balance concurrent.

50.  For Charge 7, the defendant is sentenced to 1 year and 4 months’ imprisonment. This will be ordered to be served concurrently with Charge 2.

51.  For Charge 8, the defendant is sentenced to 1 year and 8 months’ imprisonment; 4 months of this sentence will be ordered to be served consecutively to Charge 2, the balance concurrently.

52.  For Charge 11, the defendant is sentenced to 12 months’ imprisonment, of which 4 months will be served consecutively to Charge 2 and the balance concurrently.

53.  For Charge 12, the defendant will be sentenced to 8 months’ imprisonment. This will be served concurrently with Charge 2.

54.  Totally, the defendant will serve a sentence of 3 years and 2 months.