COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to six offences. These include five counts of indecent assault and one count of attempted unlawful sexual intercourse with a mentally incapacitated person. All six counts involve the same victim and were committed over a period of about a month.
The defendant was committed to the Court of First Instance on 15 August 2024. Mitigation and sentence was delayed. This case was dealt with on 6 February 2025. I adjourned sentence for two medical reports, a psychiatrist’s and a psychologist’s report. The defendant confirms his pleas as well as his agreement to the Summary of Facts.
The facts are that the victim of this incident, X, is a woman who is a mentally incapacitated person and was 22 years old at the time of these offences. She suffers from moderate grade mental retardation and is the holder of a registration card for people with disabilities. She receives training and works at a sheltered workshop. She finishes there every day at 5 o’clock. She lives with her family.
The offences came to light on 9 November 2022, when a member of staff at the workshop discovered that the victim had HK$30 in cash. She told the victim’s mother who found it strange as she had not given the victim any money. Upon inquiry, the victim told them she had gone to a man’s home and a man had asked her to take off her pants. The police were informed and the victim was taken to Caritas Medical Centre for examination. The victim’s social worker elicited information from the victim. The victim said that the defendant had taken her home on 9 November 2022 after she left the workshop, inserted his finger, and poked something into her private parts.
The victim was able to lead the police to the defendant’s home. The police also obtained CCTV footage of the lift in the defendant’s home and that CCTV footage showed the defendant and X in the lift together on the date of each charge after 5 pm.
The defendant was arrested at home and under caution he made a full and frank admission. He met X at the library in early October 2022. They chatted and they exchanged phone numbers. He lived alone. He knew she worked at the sheltered workshop nearby and finished work there at 5 every day.
On the date of the 1st offence, 4 October 2022, the defendant received a call from X to meet her in the library. They met there before going to the defendant’s home to chat. On that occasion, he touched her breast and private parts for about 20 minutes.
On the date of the 2nd offence, 9 October 2022, X went straight to the defendant’s home after work and at some stage inside his home; the defendant pulled up her shirt and fondled her breasts.
On the date of the 3rd offence, 15 October 2022, the defendant bumped into X near the library and X asked to go back to his house. They chatted and whilst in his home, he inserted his hands under her clothing, touched her breast and private parts for about 10 minutes.
On the date of the 4th charge, 23 October 2022, the more serious charge of attempted unlawful sexual intercourse with a mentally incapacitated person, the defendant called the victim to meet her at the library before they went back to his home. On his bed, he removed her trousers. He tried to insert his penis into her vagina but could not achieve an erection and failed. He did not have a condom on his penis.
On the date of the 5th charge, 5 November 2022, X went to the defendant’s home where he cooked noodles and they ate together. On the sofa, he fondled her breasts over her clothing and touched her back and buttocks for about 10 minutes.
On the date of the 6th charge, 9 November 2022, the date these offences became known, he met X near the library and they went back to the defendant’s home to play with his dogs. He touched her breasts over her shirt. He put his hand inside her underpants and touched her private parts. When she left, he gave her a drink and $30.
I do not have any details relating to the victim’s medical examination. The victim was not willing to undergo an assessment for a victim impact report.
I have heard full mitigation from Mr Yeung representing the defendant. He has said all he can say on behalf of this man. At the time of these offences, he was 67 years old. He had been retired for a long time and relied on social welfare assistance. He lived alone. When he was a young man, he had a relationship with a co-habitee and they had four children, the oldest being 48 years old now. He did marry after separating from the mother of his children but five years ago, his wife left him without a trace. Sadly, his youngest child committed suicide in 2017. The defendant has a previous criminal record but they relate to cigarettes for which duty was not paid.
I did obtain reports and I will not repeat the contents of those reports. The psychologist concluded after interviewing the defendant that there was no evidence he had any psychological issues and his risk of sexual reoffending was low. He did not perform well on the intelligence assessment but knew the difference between right and wrong. He understood the consequences of his actions.
Although he said the victim invited herself up to play at his home and on the first occasion took her clothes off and said she wanted a shower, the defendant claimed he asked the victim if this was an invitation for him to touch and she said she had done this before. He agreed that given her intellectual difficulties, he knew she was unable to make a proper judgment and he took advantage of that. He shows remorse and knows he must bear the legal consequences.
The psychiatrist found no psychiatric issue. Neither medical professionals are of the view that the defendant required any treatment or intervention.
There are no guidelines for cases of this nature. This is not a breach of trust case, the facts are not the worst of its kind. The defendant’s age is not a mitigating factor with weight. Obviously, the courts must protect innocent, trusting and vulnerable persons from sexual assault. Very often, such assaults result in physical or psychological trauma. I have no evidence of either in this case. The victim or the victim’s family did not want the victim to be subject to any assessment.
I have taken into account all the facts of each offence, the number of offences, and the time period in which these offences were committed. I have taken into account the mitigation and the professional medical reports. I balance this out with the principle that such a person, the victim in this case, needs to be protected.
I find the following starting points appropriate. The defendant pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity and is entitled to a full one-third discount from each starting point.
For Charge 1, I take a starting point of 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment which I reduce to 1 year and 8 months for the defendant’s plea.
Charge 2, I take a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment which I reduce to 1 year and 4 months for the defendant’s plea.
Charge 3, I take a starting point of 2 years and 6 months’ imprisonment which I reduce to 1 year and 8 months for the defendant’s plea.
Charge 4, I take a starting point of 4 years’ imprisonment which I reduce to 2 years and 8 months for the defendant’s plea.
Charge 5, I take a starting point of 2 years’ imprisonment which I reduce to 1 year and 4 months for the defendant’s plea.
Charge 6, I take a starting point of 2 years and 6 months which I reduce to 1 year and 8 months for the defendant’s plea.
Taking into account the facts and the time period involved, I will order the sentences for Charges 1 to 6 to be served concurrently. Therefore the defendant will serve a total term of 2 years and 8 months’ imprisonment.