HKSAR v. YAU WAI MAN AND ANOTHER

HCCC98/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 98 OF 2009

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

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

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

Transcript of the Audio Recording
of the Sentence in the above Case

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

COURT:  Yau Wai-man and Yuen Chun-yip, stand up.  You have both been committed to this court for sentence following the pleas of guilty by each of you in the Magistrates’ Court to two counts of living on the earnings of prostitution of Miss Lai Mui-kwai, a girl of 18 years of age, but who was suffering from mild grade mental retardation. 

The 1st charge relates to a period of about a week in June of 2008, following which she managed to escape and return to her parents before she again fell into your clutches.  That was on 1 July, and she was subject to your control until she was found by the police the following day.  This latter period is the subject of the 2nd charge. 

Summaries of fact were read to you in the Magistrates’ Court, which you admitted, and an amended summary of fact was read to you, the 1st defendant, before me.  It is on the basis of the summaries of fact which you have admitted that I sentence you.  However, I also take into account admissions made on your behalf by your counsel. 

There is no sentencing tariff for the offence of living on the earnings of prostitution.  It is an offence which is clearly regarded by the legislature seriously.  In 1998, the maximum term of imprisonment for that offence was increased to 10 years.  The sentence in each case, however, must depend on the facts of that case. 

On the basis of the facts admitted by you, the offences committed by you were particularly serious, and are quite different from such offences which often come before the courts. 

You were preying on the vulnerability of a young woman suffering from mild grade mental retardation to satisfy your own greed.

I had the opportunity of seeing Miss Lai give evidence in the trial of Chan Kam-po over more than four days, and am satisfied that neither of you can have been in any doubt, bearing in mind the extent of contact you had with her, that she was a young woman of very low intelligence and that her social and adaptive skills were those of a girl several years younger than her actual age.  The clinical psychologist put her adaptive skills as equivalent to those of a girl of 12½ years of age.  She estimated her full-scale IQ to be 61. 

In the early part of 2008, she met you, Yau Wai-man, and came to regard you as her boyfriend.  It is fair to add that at that stage she was already being exploited by others for prostitution.  Far from reciprocating her trust, you, Yau Wai-man, together with you, Yuen Chun-yip, set out to exploit her vulnerability by pretending to her that you, Yau, owed a debt to you, Yuen, and asking her to repay this so-called debt by engaging in prostitution.  She was then taken out each night by you, Yuen, or Chan Kam-po, to service customers, sometimes as many as 10 customers each night. 

According to the facts admitted by you, initially she was given $200 out of the $250 paid by each customer, but soon she was given nothing.  In order to ensure that she did not return home to her parents, and to guarantee your source of income, she was held at a place called the Hoi Yuet 88 Finger Cure Centre in Mong Kok under the control of Chan Kam-po during the daytime when she was not being taken out for prostitution.  She was effectively held a prisoner so that you could profit from her prostitution.  Both of you were aware of the situation. 

After a few days, she managed to escape from those premises and return to her parents.  You did not accept the situation, presumably because of the loss of income it occasioned you.  You decided to trap her back into prostitution.  

Taking advantage of the fact that in her naiveté she still regarded you, Yau Wai-man, as her boyfriend, you invited her to meet you for a date at Langham Place.  During the course of the evening, Chan Kam-po and you, Yuen Chun-yip, arrived, and pressurised her to work as a prostitute again by repeating the story of the loan.  She was taken out to receive seven customers that night. 

She tried to call her mother several times, but initially was prevented from doing so.  Ultimately she made contact with her mother.  During the course of the next few hours, she was assaulted by you, Yuen Chun-yip, causing her nose to bleed.  You also threatened to chop her.  Eventually, and fortunately, she was seen in the street by her mother, who was at that time travelling in a police car, and she was rescued. 

As I said, you were effectively enslaving this vulnerable, mentally-handicapped young woman to satisfy your own greed.  Your culpability, Yuen Chun-yip, is aggravated by your use of violence on Miss Lai. 

Although your direct role in Miss Lai’s prostitution, Yau Wai-man, may have been less than that of Yuen Chun-yip, you clearly knew and were party to what was going on. 

A matter of some mitigation is, as I have said, that Miss Lai had been previously involved in prostitution before she met you.  You would have known that, and would have known that she was open to exploitation.  This is not a case, however, in which you were the first to corrupt her. 

Insofar as you, Yau Wai-man, are concerned, I adopt a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment on each charge. 

So far as you, Yuen, are concerned, I adopt a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment on Count 1, and 3½ years’ imprisonment on Count 2, to reflect the violence you inflicted on Miss Lai during the second period. 

Neither of you can claim in mitigation that you are persons of previous good character.  Each of you has been before the court on a number of previous occasions.  In your case, Yau, I bear in mind that none of your previous convictions have involved activities connected with vice.  In your case, Yuen, two of your previous convictions have related to vice activities. 

By reason of your pleas of guilty at an early stage, you are entitled to the usual discount of one-third. 

I pass sentence as follows: 

Yau Wai-man, on Count 1 I sentence you to 2 years’ imprisonment. 

On Count 2 I sentence you to 2 years’ imprisonment. 

In my view, the appropriate overall sentence in your case should be 3 years’ imprisonment, so I order that 12 months of the sentence on Count 2 runs consecutively to the sentence on Count 1. 

So the total overall sentence in your case is 3 years’ imprisonment.

The 3rd defendant, Yuen, I pass sentence as follows: 

On Count 1 I sentence you to 2 years’ imprisonment. 

On Count 2 I sentence you to 28 months’ imprisonment. 

The appropriate overall sentence in your case is 3 years 4 months’ imprisonment. 

I therefore order 16 months of the sentence on Count 2 to run consecutively to the sentence on Count 1. 

In your case, Yuen, I see no reason why the suspended sentence that was imposed on you on 17 January 2006 in respect of the offence of managing a vice establishment should not be activated.  

So that 6-month sentence will run consecutively to the sentence I have passed on you.