HKSAR v. LAU LIN YING

HCMA 959/2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

MAGISTRACY APPEAL NO. 959 OF 2003

(ON APPEAL FROM KCCC 7545/2003)

____________

____________

_______________

J U D G M E N T

_______________

1. The Appellant faced 2 counts of Assisting in the Management of a vice establishment in the Magistrate's Court and after trial was convicted of both charges. The Appellant appeals against that conviction.

2. It is clear from the prosecution evidence that on the day of the first offence, PW1 who was a police officer, posed as a civilian went to the subject premises with two marked $500 notes. Upon arrival, the Defendant greeted him and asked if he wanted a girl and to go in and sit down. Inside that location, PW1 saw 4 women including the Defendant. The Defendant, that is the Appellant, showed him a file filled with magazine clippings. As he was reading it, another person, Ms So, walked in through the door and said to PW1: "if you want a girl, choose anyone you like". Then Ms So proceeded to explain to him the cost involved and the rent of the room which was on another floor. PW1 then gave one of the $500 notes to Ms So, then Ms So instructed the Appellant to take PW1 and the woman that PW1 had chosen, downstairs to another location which the police called Location 2.

3. After the Appellant had opened the door of Location 2 with a key and went in with PW1 and the woman, she then left, closing the door on her way out. Then the woman, whom PW1 had chosen, proceeded to take a shower, it was at that time that PW1 informed his colleagues by phone that the operation was a success. That woman was subsequently arrested for Breach of Condition of Stay and PW1 subsequently identified the Defendant and Ms So and both were arrested.

4. PW1 also noted that CCTV camera was installed at the corridor leading to the Location 1 and before he even had time to press the bell, the door had been opened.

5. PW2 and PW3 were both plain clothes officers and again they posed as civilians and they were also armed with marked notes when they attended Location 1 at a later time in the same afternoon. Upon their arrival at the corridor, Ms So came out to greet them and asked them if they wanted to a girl. So the 2 witnesses entered and saw 2 women inside and then Ms So proceeded to tell them about the price. After the negotiation of the price, money was handed to Ms So and Ms So asked the 2 to wait as no room was yet available. While they were waiting, Ms So gave them 2 files to read and then shortly afterwards, the Defendant came into the room and the Appellant went outside with Ms So. Subsequently, the 2 women left in the room where both witnesses were discovered to be 2-way permit holders.

6. When PW2 arrested the Appellant at Location 1, under caution, the Appellant told him that she could not find a job and had to support her family so she did such things. She did not know she had committed an offence.

7. This statement was not challenged, but the record of interview that was taken from the Appellant back at the police station was challenged as to its voluntariness.

8. After the learned Magistrate had listened to the evidence relating thereto, he also had listened to the evidence given by the Appellant to elect to give evidence on a special issue. The learned Magistrate in coming to his conclusion as to the voluntariness of the statement had reminded himself that the Appellant had no previous conviction. The Appellant's testimony was that after she was taken back to the police station, she was adduced by PW2 to give the statement. She claimed that the information in the statement was not supplied by her and she claimed she only studied for a few short years in China and she could only read Chinese characters in a simplified form and she could not read the statement that had been written out.

9. The learned Magistrate having observed the Appellant giving evidence found her account of the events to be implausible and decided that she was not an honest witness and did not believe her. At the end of the day, he found that the prosecution witnesses were credible and honest and reliable witnesses and therefore, he ruled that the statement was voluntary and thus the record of interview was admitted at P29. In P29, the Appellant admitted that she had worked for Ms So for 6 months. Her job was to open the door for customers at Location 1 and escorted them to Location 2 where sexual services would be provided by prostitutes. So there was no doubt that the Appellant in that statement admitted she was aware that sexual services had been offered to men in those locations.

10. After the Magistrate ruled that there was a case to answer, the Appellant elected not to give evidence. Ms So gave evidence and Ms So's evidence was that the premises were rented to individuals for filmmaking and that the money yet received from the police officers was for rent. Ms So said the women in the premises were actually models and they were her friends. At the end of her evidence, the learned Magistrate did not find her evidence credible nor logical or realistic, so he found that she did not raise any doubt as far as the prosecution case was concerned.

11. At the end of the day, he found that both the Appellants were guilty of those charges. The Appellant was represented by counsel in the court below, but on appeal, she is unrepresented. She said that she did not introduce girls to anyone nor did she collect any money as she was only a cleaner on the premises. She asked this court to take away her conviction because it would be difficult for her to find a job. She was only on the premises on the subject day because she was doing cleaning work and she was only acting according to the instructions of her employer.

12. As I had said, it is clear from the facts that were related to the learned Magistrate, it is that the Appellant did more than clean. Apart from the evidence that she had opened the door and asked the police officer whether he wanted a girl; after the police officer had paid, she also led the police officer to the second location together with the other girl where sexual services were to be provided. It is also evident from her cautioned statement that she knew what was going on, and she had participated in it. So the learned Magistrate had ample evidence before him to find that the Appellant was guilty of those offences.

13. I can see no reasonable or valid grounds of appeal that have been raised by the Appellant. I have read the Statement of Findings of the learned Magistrate and it is clear that he was not in error either procedurally or in his analysis of the facts. The appeal is therefore dismissed.