COURT: The defendant in this case has pleaded guilty to 24 offences. These include seven charges of administering drugs to obtain or facilitate unlawful sexual acts, 16 charges of indecent assault and one charge of possession of child pornography. He was committed to the Court of First Instance on 20 July 2023 for sentence. Today, he confirms his pleas as well as his agreement to the summary of facts.
These offences involve 6 victims all known to and in my view groomed over a period of time by the defendant; a period of between 4 to 7 years.
The 1st victim, X, met the defendant when he was 14 years old. The defendant was his English tutor between 2016 and 2019. The first 7 charges relate to this victim who was 18 years old at the time of the first indecent assault,
Charge 1.
Charge 1, the defendant indecently assaulted X in a hotel room of the Mandarin Oriental Hotel between 15 and 16 November 2020. Whilst X was asleep and without his knowledge or consent, the defendant kissed X’s toes and took a video of the indecent assault.
Charge 2. In a hotel room of the OZO Wesley Hotel between 16 and 17 May 2021, the defendant administered a drug. He caused X to take a drug, a sleeping pill, Stilnox, with intent to stupefy or overpower X to enable him to do an unlawful sexual act with X. The defendant told X it was a supplement and persuaded him to take it. X did not know he had been drugged.
Charge 3. The defendant indecently assaulted X in that hotel room between those dates. Whilst X was asleep and without his knowledge or consent, the defendant kissed X’s thighs and feet, touched his buttocks, performed oral sex on X and took six videos during the course of those indecent assaults.
Charge 4. In a hotel room of the Grand Hyatt Hotel between 17 and 18 May 2021, the defendant administered a drug. He caused X to take a drug, a sleeping pill, Stilnox, with intent to stupefy or overpower X to enable him to do an unlawful sexual act with X. The defendant told X it was a supplement and persuaded him to take it. X did not know he had been drugged.
Charge 5. The defendant indecently assaulted X in that hotel room between those dates. Whilst X was asleep and without his knowledge or consent, the defendant kissed X’s buttocks, touched his penis, fingered his anus and rubbed his penis on X’s buttocks. The defendant took five videos during the course of those indecent assaults.
Charge 6. In a hotel room of the OZO Wesley Hotel between 30 and 31 August 2021, the defendant administered a drug. He caused X to take a drug, a sleeping pill, Stilnox, with intent to stupefy or overpower X to enable him to do an unlawful sexual act with X. He again persuaded X to take the pill and X did not know he had been drugged.
Charge 7. The defendant indecently assaulted X in that hotel room between those dates. Whilst X was asleep and without his knowledge or consent, the defendant performed oral sex on X, injected KY Jelly lubricant into X’s anus and fingered his anus.
It was during the indecent assault of Charge 7 that X woke up at around 3 am and felt the defendant rubbing his penis. He immediately left the hotel room and reported this to the police. The defendant was arrested in his hotel room that same morning and under caution. He said he had used the wrong method to satisfy his desires. His home was searched, and the police found a hard disc containing multiple videos recording the indecent assaults performed by the defendant upon X, as well as the other five victims of the other charges. This was how the other unknowing victims were identified and then informed of what had happened to them.
The 2nd victim, Y, met the defendant in 2015 when he was 14 years old and living in a small group home for children in need. The defendant was the pastor of this small group home until 2018. Y came from a broken home, and he came to treat the defendant as his mentor. They kept in touch after 2018, and Y would often go to social gatherings at the defendant’s home in Ma Wan with other former residents of the small group home. Charges 8 and 9 involved this victim. Y was 19 years old at the time of these offences.
Charge 8. In the defendant’s home in Ma Wan on 27 September 2020, the defendant administered a drug. He caused Y to take a drug, a sleeping pill, Stilnox, with intent to stupefy or overpower Y to enable him to do an unlawful sexual act with Y. He persuaded Y to take the pill, telling him it was a supplement. Y did not know he had been drugged.
Charge 9. The defendant indecently assaulted Y in his home on that date. Whilst Y was asleep and without his knowledge or consent, the defendant touched his penis and performed oral sex on Y. The defendant took a video during the course of this indecent assault.
The 3rd victim, Z, met the defendant in 2015 when he was 14 years old and living in a small group home for children in need. Between 2011 and 2015, the defendant was the pastor of the home. They kept in touch or in contact after Z left the home. Charges 10 to 15 relate to this victim, who was 19 years old at the time of the first indecent assault.
Charge 10. In the defendant’s home in Ma Wan on 22 June 2020, the defendant administered a drug. He caused Z to take a drug, matter or thing with intent to stupefy or overpower Z to enable him to do an unlawful sexual act with Z. Z did not know he was drugged nor what it was he had been given.
Charge 11. The defendant indecently assaulted Z on that date. Whilst Z was asleep and without his knowledge or consent, the defendant touched and kissed Z’s buttocks and penis. He took three videos during the course of those indecent assaults.
Charge 12. In a hotel room in the Royal Garden Hotel between 28 and 29 September 2020, the defendant administered a drug. He caused Z to take a drug, matter or thing with intent to stupefy or overpower Z to enable him to do an unlawful sexual act with Z. He persuaded Z to take two pills purporting to relieve his drunkenness after drinking alcohol. Z did not know he had been drugged.
Charge 13. The defendant indecently assaulted Z in that hotel room on those dates. Whilst Z was asleep and without his knowledge or consent, the defendant touched Z’s buttocks and fingered his anus. He took five videos during the course of those indecent assaults.
Charge 14. In a hotel room in the EAST Hong Kong Hotel between 24 and 25 October 2020, the defendant indecently assaulted Z whilst Z was asleep. Without his knowledge or consent, the defendant kissed Z and fingered his anus. The defendant took two videos during the course of those indecent assaults.
Charge 15. In a hotel room in the Grand Hyatt Hotel between 18 and 19 July 2021, the defendant indecently assaulted Z whilst Z was asleep. Without his knowledge or consent, the defendant kissed Z’s lips and forehead. The defendant took three videos during the course of those indecent assaults.
The 4th victim, T, met the defendant in 2015 when he was 15 years old and living in a small group home for children in need between 2011 and 2017. The defendant was the pastor of the home. T came from a broken home and trusted the defendant as a mentor. They kept in contact after T left the home. Charges 16 to 19 relate to this victim who was 20 years old at the time of the first indecent assault.
Charge 16. The defendant indecently assaulted T in his home in Ma Wan on 27 May 2020. Whilst he was asleep and without his knowledge or consent, the defendant performed oral sex on T. The defendant took a video of the indecent assault.
Charge 17. In a hotel room in the Hotel ICON between 22 and 23 November 2020, the defendant indecently assaulted T. Whilst he was asleep and without his knowledge or consent, the defendant performed oral sex on T and also ejaculated on T’s abdomen. He took two videos of the indecent assault.
Charge 18. In a hotel room in Park Hotel on 15 August 2021, the defendant caused T to take a drug, matter or thing with intent to stupefy or overpower T to enable him to do an unlawful sexual act on T. He persuaded T to take a pill, claiming it was a supplement. T did not know he had been drugged.
Charge 19. The defendant indecently assaulted T in that hotel room on that date. Whilst he was asleep and without his consent or knowledge, the defendant touched T’s penis.
The 5th victim, U, met the defendant in 2012 when he was 16 years old during church activities. He came from a dysfunctional family. He became very close to the defendant and treated him like family. His own family let him stay overnight at the defendant’s home and go on staycations with him during the COVID period. Charges 20 to 22 relate to this victim when he was 24 years old at the time of the first indecent assault.
Charge 20. The defendant indecently assaulted U in a hotel room in the Grand Hyatt Hotel between 19 and 20 December 2020. Whilst he was asleep and without his knowledge or consent, the defendant kissed his lips and touched U’s penis.
Charge 21. The defendant indecently assaulted U at the defendant’s home in Ma Wan between 1 and 2 May 2021. Whilst he was asleep and without his knowledge or consent, the defendant touched U’s penis and performed oral sex on him.
Charge 22. The defendant indecently assaulted U in a hotel room at Renaissance Harbour View Hotel between 7 and 8 August 2021. Whilst he was asleep and without his knowledge or consent, the defendant kissed U and performed oral sex on him. The defendant took two videos during the course of those indecent assaults.
The 6th victim, V, met the defendant in 2013 when he was 13 years old during church activities. Charge 23 was committed when the victim, V, was 20 years old.
Charge 23. The defendant indecently assaulted V at the defendant’s home in Ma Wan between 2 and 3 May 2020. Whilst he was asleep and without his knowledge or consent, the defendant performed oral sex on V and fingered his anus. The defendant took two videos in the course of those indecent assaults.
Charge 24 involves anonymous victims in that it is one charge of possession of child pornography. On 31 August 2021, in the defendant’s home, the police found on a hard disc seized six videos of child pornography. Four videos depicted non-penetrative sexual activity between an adult and children. The other two depicted penetrative sexual activity between children and adults.
I do not intend to repeat the facts of this case. I have made those clear in my descriptions above for each charge. Under caution, in three video-recorded interviews, the defendant frankly admitted indecently assaulting all these victims on separate occasions. He admitted administering drugs on some occasions in order to facilitate those indecent assaults. He agrees he made videos or took photographs of some of those indecent assaults. He downloaded those videos onto a hard disc that the police subsequently found. He agrees that the same hard disc also contained six videos of child pornography of the last charge.
Before sentence, the Department of Justice obtained victim impact assessment psychological reports for four of the victims. Two victims, Z and V, were not willing to be interviewed by a psychologist. I do intend to summarise those here without repeating all the contents of those reports.
The 1st victim, X, was the only one who had a normal, stable and loving family background. The defendant was his English tutor who became a good and trusted friend. He is lucky that his family and his girlfriend are all aware of these offences and give him immeasurable support.
The psychologist found him emotionally stable and the psychological impact of finding out about these offences and what happened to him minimal. He has not suffered from any significant or debilitating psychological disturbances or symptoms. It would appear his personal resilience and his social support network has thankfully largely mitigated the impact of these sexual crimes committed against him.
The 2nd victim, Y, comes, as I’ve said, from a tragic, broken family background. He has had no love, care or guidance from a very young age. He lived in a small group home from Primary 2 and he treated the defendant, who was the pastor of the group for some time, as his mentor. In fact, he describes the defendant as the first person he learned to trust and care for.
Y has developed post-traumatic stress disorder symptoms as a result of finding out about these violations against him. He no longer trusts anybody. He has broken up with his girlfriend of over two years. He has low self-esteem and low self-worth. He is unable to be intimate with anyone because of this trauma. The psychologist said he found it very difficult to articulate his deep-down emotions. He suffers from intense pain and shock. He needs and is willing to receive psychological treatment going forward.
The 3rd victim, T, also comes from a broken home with parents who were unable to provide any care for him, let alone any love or guidance. He was raised in homes most of his childhood. He was bullied physically and psychologically during his formative years. He had no one to protect him or care for him and perceived the world as dangerous.
Only after he met the defendant during church activities when he was 15 did he for the first time feel genuine care from another human being. He treated the defendant as a father figure. The defendant provided everything he craved and yearned for emotionally. Even after the defendant stopped serving the small group home, he kept in contact with T. The defendant would invite T and another victim to his home at least once a month.
T entirely trusted the defendant, so when he served alcohol and invited him to stay overnight, he accepted it without question. He does recall telling the psychologist that sometimes he would feel dizzy during some of those sleepovers and he had strange sensations in his crotch area, but he never suspected the defendant. He had no idea of the sexual abuse until the police contacted him after finding video recordings.
As a result of these violations, this victim has shut down emotionally and cut himself off socially from people. He has enormous self-doubt and trusts no one anymore. He feels ashamed and lives in fear of being labelled. The psychologist says he is very negative, feels betrayed, disgusted and unable to consider intimate relationships or even friendships. He is suffering from complex post-traumatic stress disorder. In view of the enormous impact on his daily functioning, psychological intervention is recommended to assist his recovery.
The 4th victim, U, also comes from a dysfunctional family and was in fact abandoned by his parents when he was only 1 year’s old. He lived with other family members and had very little contact with his own parents. His family did not provide much guidance, love or care. He was a lonely child, but he did follow his grandmother’s wishes and attend church.
It was there at church that he met the defendant when he was 16 years old. The defendant was the leader of a youth group and showed him care for the first time in his young life. He trusted the defendant, who befriended him. The victim treated the defendant as family and often stayed overnight in his home. The defendant even took the victim on paid overseas trips. He invited him to stay in hotels for staycations.
This victim, U, was utterly shocked to find that he had been sexually abused on many occasions by the defendant and that those abuses had been recorded. He broke down watching the video clips and experienced intense disgust. He felt the defendant had exploited his innocence, trust and vulnerability to satisfy his own sexual desires.
The psychologist concludes he, now, because of these violations, suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder and depression. The trauma has led to persistent and exaggerated negative views of himself and other people. It has adversely affected his faith, as well as friendships and intimate relationships. Rather unfortunately, this victim has declined treatment to address these issues because of his busy and unstable work schedule. He also does not, in reality, want to face the facts of these sexual assaults.
Mitigation
Mr Hui has provided me with full written mitigation, as well as some 21 mitigation letters from the defendant himself, family members, friends, previous colleagues and people from the church. They all describe him as an inherently kind, generous and pious person. They all feel he is full of remorse and many only write letters because they believe his remorse is genuine and his subsequent reflection real.
I have read those letters, but I can say that they carry little weight when these offences are so serious, the violations so degrading and the impact on victims so enormous and long lasting.
The best mitigation is the defendant’s plea at the earliest opportunity and the fact that those victims do not have to face the defendant in open court in a witness-box.
The defendant is now 51 years old and was born in Hong Kong. He received his higher education in Australia and then Canada. Prior to his arrest, he lived with his younger sister and is single. He was a man with a clear record. At the time of his arrest and these offences, he was earning an income as an English tutor.
Defence counsel, Mr Hui, has stressed the defendant did not publish or share those videos with anybody else. Moreover, he was fully cooperative with the police and made full admissions upon arrest.
Sentencing
Having read the facts, considered the nature of the charges and the victim impact assessment reports, I am of the view that the defendant groomed these many victims over a long period of time.
It is an aggravating factor. He befriended them when they were much younger and acted as a figure in authority. All but one came from broken homes and therefore were vulnerable, malleable youths.
It is an aggravating factor. He abused their trust and the trust of those that put him in such an authoritative position. For his own sexual gratification, he took advantage of these young men. He acted like a predator.
I have been urged to consider the six victims were not young children or young teenagers when the offences took place. However, they met the defendant, and he groomed them from a young age to a point where they trusted him implicitly. It was because they trusted him that they went on staycations with him, went over to his home, and took pills that he gave them because he said they were good for them.
To drug these young men and violate them whilst they were basically unconscious is heinous and has made their reactions to these crimes, once discovered, all the more serious.
It is another aggravating factor that the impact on three out of the four interviewed by a psychologist have been affected by life-changing symptoms and will very likely be long-lasting symptoms. Those three were young people from broken homes and the three that gravitated to the defendant as a mentor, a father figure that they never had.
I have no evidence if the drug identified in some of these cases, Stilnox, would have had any side effects or lingering effects the following day. For example, affecting memory or driving a vehicle or operating machinery. Luckily here, there is no such evidence nor evidence of any health risk manifesting at the time.
I have taken into account the factor that the offences were premeditated. They were repeated incidences, and they took place over a significant period, over one year. The defendant clearly became bolder with either each occasion or with more victims. That is obvious from the acts of indecency between Charge 1 and 7 where victim X was concerned.
Moreover, he videoed these violations and kept a record which must be viewed as an aggravating factor. There has to be a need for deterrence in a case of this nature and magnitude.
Mr Hui has pointed out that there are no sentencing guidelines for either of these offences, indecent assault or administering a dangerous drug to obtain and facilitate unlawful sexual acts.
Sentencing would depend largely on the facts of each case. Sentences will be fact specific. He has provided me with some previous sentencing cases to consider. The maximum sentence for indecent assault is 10 years’ imprisonment whilst the maximum for administering dangerous drugs for this purpose is 14 years’ imprisonment.
I have been referred to the authority of the Secretary for Justice and Man Kwong Choi [2008] 5 HKLRD 519, which classified guidelines for the determining of the starting point for possession of child pornography and the different levels to consider.
In this case, there were four Level 3 videos and two Level 4 videos, Level 4 being the worst category. Having taken into account the facts of each charge against the six victims, mitigation put forward and the aggravating factors I have identified above, I intend to take a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment for each offence of administering drugs to obtain or facilitate unlawful sexual acts.
The starting points for some of the indecent assault charges will differ depending on the acts committed by the defendant.
The defendant will be entitled to a full one-third discount from those starting points for his guilty pleas at the earliest opportunity.
I will consider the totality principle. I will also consider the fact there were six victims. I intend to make sentences relating to each victim partly consecutive to a charge relating to the 1st victim X and the balance concurrently.
Charge 1 to 7 relates to victim X.
Charge 1, indecent assault. I take a starting point of 12 months imprisonment, which I reduce to 8 months’ imprisonment.
Charge 2, administering a dangerous drug. I take a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment and reduce it to 4 years.
Charge 3, indecent assault. I take a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment and reduce it to 2 years.
Charge 4, administering a dangerous drug. I take a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment and reduce it to 4.
Charge 5, indecent assault. I take a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment and reduce it to 2.
Charge 6, administering a dangerous drug. I take a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment, and I reduce it to 4.
Charge 7, indecent assault. I take a starting point of 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, and I reduce it to 2 years and 4 months.
Charge 8 and 9 relate to victim Y.
Charge 8, administering a dangerous drug. I take a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment, and I reduce it to 4.
Charge 9, indecent assault. I take a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment, and I reduce it to 2.
Charges 10 to 15 relate to victim Z.
Charge 10, administering a dangerous drug. I take a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment, and I reduce it to 4.
Charge 11, indecent assault. I take a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment, and I reduce it to 2.
Charge 12, administering a dangerous drug. I take a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment, and I reduce it to 4.
Charge 13, indecent assault. I take a starting point of 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, and I reduce it to 2 years and 4 months.
Charge 14, indecent assault. I take a starting point of 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, and I reduce it to 2 years and 4 months.
Charge 15, indecent assault. I take a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment, and I reduce it to 2.
Charge 16 to 19 relate to victim T.
Charge 16, indecent assault. I take a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment, and I reduce it to 2.
Charge 17, indecent assault. I take a starting point of 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, and I reduce it to 2 years and 4 months.
Charge 18, administering a dangerous drug. I take a starting point of 6 years’ imprisonment, and I reduce it to 4.
Charge 19, indecent assault. I take a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment, and I reduce it to 2.
Charge 20 to 22 relate to victim U.
Charge 20, indecent assault. I take a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment, and I reduce it to 2.
Charge 21, indecent assault. I take a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment, and I reduce it to 2.
Charge 22, indecent assault. I take a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment, and I reduce it to 2.
Charge 23 relates to victim V.
Charge 23, indecent assault. I take a starting point of 3 years and 6 months’ imprisonment, and I reduce it to 2 years and 4 months.
Lastly, Charge 24, possession of child pornography. I take a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment, and I reduce it to 1 year and 4 months.
As I have said above, I will consider the totality principle as well as the number of victims. I make the following orders.
All sentences will be served concurrently except for the following.
6 months of Charge 8, the 1st charge relating to victim Y, will be served consecutively to Charge 2 relating to victim X.
6 months of Charge 10, the 1st charge relating to victim Z, will be served consecutively to Charge 2 relating to victim X.
6 months of Charge 18, relating to victim T, will be served consecutively to Charge 2 relating to victim X.
6 months of Charge 20, the 1st charge relating to victim U, will be served consecutively to Charge 2 relating to victim X.
3 months of Charge 23, relating to victim V, will be served consecutively to Charge 2 relating to victim X.
3 months of Charge 24, possession of child pornography, will be served consecutively to Charge 2.
Therefore, I add a total of 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment to the 4-year sentence of Charge 2.
Accordingly, the defendant is sentenced to a total of 6 years and 6 months’ imprisonment.