HKSAR v. LAW CHUN YIN

HCCC 273/2025

[2026] HKCFI 1298

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 273 OF 2025

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant pleaded guilty to 17 counts of sexual offences against two boys, “X” and “Y”, who were both at the time 15 years old. X was a Form 3 student and Y was Form 5. The defendant was 35 years old.

The offences committed by the defendant against X are five counts of indecent assault, two counts of homosexual buggery and one count of threatened publication of intimate images without consent. For Y, seven counts of homosexual buggery, one count of threatened publication of intimate images without consent and one count of indecent conduct towards a child.

The dates of the offences against X happened between 26 July 2023 and 1 August 2023. And the dates of the offences against Y happened between 12 April 2023 and 3 July 2023.

Both X and Y got acquainted with the defendants through an online dating app, “Blued”. Through the app, the defendant asked X if he would want to be the defendant’s slave and the defendant would pay him pocket money. X agreed. They exchanged telephone numbers and communicated through WhatsApp. The defendant asked X to provide his date of birth and address and ordered X to address him as “master” or “elder brother”. The defendant also asked X to send him photos and videos depicting X’s genital and X masturbating himself.

On 26 July 2023, the defendant drove his car to pick up X and drove to Fei Ngo Shan, and during the journey, the defendant grabbed X’s genital. This is Charge 1.

On 27 July 2023, the defendant went to X’s home where he committed buggery on X without using a condom.That is Charge 2. After the buggery, the defendant whipped X’s back and buttock with a whip for around eight times, Charge 3. X did not like the feeling and requested to break up with the defendant, but the defendant held X’s scrotum and pinched and rubbed the testicle of X, Charge 4. As X insisted that he wanted to break up, the defendant threatened X with the intimate photos of X in his possession, Charge 5. The defendant then paid $500 cash to X and transferred $161 to X.

On 28 July 2023, the defendant asked X to go out with him, but X declined. The defendant became angry, but transferred $100 to X in the evening.

On 29 July 2023, X went out with the defendant again, and in the car, the defendant touched X’s genital and nipple, Charge 6. The defendant drove X to Shek O, and at Shek O, the defendant touched X’s body, including his genital, Charge 7.

On 31 July 2023, the defendant went to X’s home, the defendant asked X to perform oral sex on the defendant, and the defendant committed buggery on X without using a condom, Charge 8.

On 1 August 2023, X sent a message to the defendant to break up with him. The defendant threatened X by sending X nude photos and screen captures of videos X previously sent to the defendant. The defendant also threatened to expose their relationship to X’s grandmother, Charge 9. Feeling threatened, X reported to the police.

The defendant was arrested by the police on 2 August 2023, and was subsequently charged and remanded. While he was remanded, the defendant sent letters to Y, and the letters were opened and read by Y’s mother. Upon enquiry by his mother, Y told her that the defendant had committed buggery on him. The matter was reported to the police.

Similar to the case of X, the defendant and Y exchanged telephone numbers after they got acquainted through the mobile app. The defendant promised to pay pocket money to Y.

On 12 April 2023, the defendant and Y went to a guesthouse at Mirador Mansion, Tsim Sha Tsui. And in the guesthouse, the defendant blindfolded Y and asked Y to perform oral sex on the defendant. They masturbated each other, and the defendant committed buggery on Y using a condom, Charge 10. Y felt painful and expressed his resent(resentment?) to the buggery. The defendant then paid Y $1,000.

On 16 April 2023, the defendant and Y met at a hotel in Tsing Yi. In the hotel, Y performed oral sex on the defendant, and the defendant committed buggery on Y using a condom, Charge 11.

On 29 April 2023, the defendant and Y went to an unknown building in Tsim Sha Tsui. Y performed oral sex on the defendant, and the defendant committed buggery on Y using a condom at first, but removed during the buggery, Charge 12.

On 13 May 2023, 21 May 2023, and 21 June 2023, the defendant and Y went to Winland 800 Hotel in Tsing Yi. They had oral sex, and the defendant committed buggery on Y without using a condom. The defendant also used a whip to hit Y during the buggery. This is Charges 13 to 15.

On 3 July 2023, the defendant drove Y to Winland 800 again after school. In the hotel, the defendant blindfolded Y with an eye mask and engaged in SM with Y by putting a dog collar on Y, dragged him to crawl around, and hit him with a whip. After Y performed oral sex on the defendant, the defendant forced Y to drink the defendant’s urine, which Y did, but spat out without actually drinking. The defendant committed buggery on Y without using condom, these are Charges 16 and 17.

Impact reports of X and Y are obtained. For X, the clinical psychologist opined that the abuses resulted in ongoing psychological suffering, which continued even two years after the incidents. X continued to experience distressing post-traumatic symptoms, including intrusive flashbacks, persistent fear, shame, and sadness as an aftermath of the sexual abuses. The impaired self-view and shameful feelings X internalised had compromised his ability to develop interpersonal trust and diminished his readiness to seek help creating additional barriers to his psychological recovery. The psychological damages inflicted on X could potentially persist into his adulthood.

For Y, the impact is apparently not as serious as X. However, whether and to what extent the sexual crimes might have negatively impacted on his psychosexual development and functioning could not be clearly answered at this stage. The possibility that Y, with or without his conscious awareness, is now adopting the avoidance strategy and minimising the issues could not be completely ruled out.

The defendant is now 38 years old. He was born in Hong Kong and studied up to Form 3 level. Before his arrest, he was employed as a driver. He was single and living with his mother. This is not the first time the defendant committed sexual offences against children. In fact, as fairly acknowledged by Mr Kevin Chan, counsel for the defendant, the defendant can be described as a recidivist with a penchant for this type of sex crime.

The defendant has 17 previous convictions, 14 of which are sexual offences. For the last offences he committed, he was sentenced to 8½ years’ imprisonment at first instance, which was reduced to 8 years on appeal. The relevant case is HKSAR v Law Chun Yin [2025] HKLRD 297.

The defendant was discharged from prison on 10 May 2022. At the time when he committed the present offences, he was still under the supervision of the Correctional Services Department. In view of the criminal history of the defendant, I ordered the defendant’s background report, psychiatrist’s report and psychologist’s reports for consideration.

It is stated in the reports that the defendant was the only child in his family. At seven, his mother divorced his father due to his father’s gambling debts and extramarital affairs. He harboured resentment towards his mother for destroying the family, for he was mostly taken care of by his father and being emotionally attached to him. Besides, the mother was described as hot-tempered and punitive. The defendant’s relationship with his mother was hostile but enmeshed.

Due to his family circumstances, the defendant developed feelings of inferiority and a fear of ridicule, making him hypersensitive to comments and prone to frequent emotional outbursts.

The defendant exhibited impulsive and sensation-seeking tendencies from a young age. He engaged in conduct problems, including stealing and truancy, in late childhood. He had few friends and harboured persistent sense of loneliness. He was reportedly sexually abused by a male schoolmate in Form 3 and derived sexual excitement from the experience and subsequently engaged in similar sexual activities with the primary schoolmate experiencing sexual pleasure.

The clinical psychologist has performed psychological testing on the defendant, and the defendant’s risk of sexual recidivism was assessed as very high. It is the clinical psychologist’s view that the defendant assumed minimal personal responsibility for the present offences and blamed his romantic partner and the victims.

The defendant was described as a person with borderline personality disorder with paedophilia and sadism. The defendant’s risk of sexual reoffending was very high. The psychiatrist described the defendant as paedophilic and not otherwise suffering from mental illness.

It is the opinion of the probation officer that the defendant made light of the legal consequences and lacked genuine motivation to seek treatment to resolve his problems. However, the defendant stated that he had deeply reflected on his misdeeds and promised that he would receive medication, which he previously refused to take.

As submitted by Mr Chan, the most relevant legal authority to refer to in considering sentence is in fact the defendant’s own case before the Court of Appeal in HKSAR v Law Chun Yin. In that case, the defendant committed one count of indecent assault, two counts of indecent conduct towards a child under the age of 16 years, two counts of homosexual buggery with a man under the age of 16 years, and two counts of making child pornography. As mentioned above, he was given an overall sentence of 8 years’ imprisonment.

In paragraph 39 of the judgment, the Court of Appeal referred to HKSAR v Tsang Chiu Tak [2013] 1 HKLRD 427(422?). The Court of Appeal reiterated the factors identified in Tsang Chiu Tak that needed to take into consideration for sentencing a defendant in cases of sexual assault on a child. They are as follows:

(a) The age difference between the defendant and the victim;

(b) The relationship between the defendant and the victim, including whether the defendant had taken advantage of his position or status to commit the offence and whether there was a breach of trust in the case;

(c) Whether the defendant had used threats of inducement to make the victim succumb;

(d) The number of occasions of committing the offences and the duration of offences;

(e) Whether inappropriate and unnecessary violence was used by defendant to cause harm or discomfort to the victim;

(f) Whether any safety measures were taken by the defendant in sexually abusing the victim in order to avoid transmitting any venereal disease to the victim or getting her pregnant;

(g) Whether the sexual abuses have caused physical or psychological trauma to the victim;

(h) Whether the offences have impact on the family members of the victim;

(i) Whether the defendant was involved in other inappropriate behaviours such as inviting other people to watch or take photos or videos of the offence he committed; And

(j) Whether the defendant is psychologically imbalanced and paedophilic and the likelihood of re-offending.

In the present case, as was the case in Law Chun Yin, nearly all the above factors are not in the defendant’s favour. And I am not repeating what I mentioned in the summary of facts I set out above in respect of each charge.

In paragraph 46 of Law Chun Yin, after setting out the court’s consideration regarding the aggravating features of the facts in that case, which are, as I mentioned, very similar to the present case, except that two victims are involved and 17 charges are referred in the present case.

The Court of Appeal said,

“In order to deter the appellant to protect the community, we have come to the conclusion that an overall term of 8 years upon plea is appropriate. This term should also sufficiently reflect the appellant’s criminality in these seven charges.”

With this overall sentence of 8 years in mind, the Court of Appeal determined the appropriate sentences in respect of each charge and made appropriate orders to make certain terms to run consecutively or concurrently.

In the present case, it is apparent that the defendant was not deterred at all following the previous sentence. After the previous convictions and sentence, he had no insight to his problem, which was evidenced by his refusal to undergo treatment by medication and re-offending shortly after his discharge against young children, one after another.

Mr Chan had tried his best to advance mitigation for the defendant. He said the defendant is now remorseful, as reflected in his early plea, that the defendant has an unpleasant childhood that had contributed to his deviant conduct, and that the defendant has enrolled in a CSD programme on psychological therapy for sexual deviant conduct and will take up a counselling and psychotherapy course by the Chinese University.

The defendant, his father, mother and younger sister have submitted mitigation letters to the court asking for the court’s leniency and showing their support to the defendant. While I would encourage the defendant to put every effort to deal with his problems, I am of the view that the mitigation advance can bear little consideration on the defendant’s sentence when weighed against the need for deterrence and protection to society in this matter.

As pronounced by the Court of Appeal, the defendant has to be deterred and the community has to be protected. In my judgment, the sentence should be a term of imprisonment which can sufficiently reflect the gravity of the offences and have an effect of deterrence. In my view, an overall term of 10 years’ imprisonment upon plea is the appropriate sentence to fulfil the above purposes.

To arrive at this overall sentence, I will impose the following sentences in respect of each charge against the defendant.

For Charges 1, 3, 4, 6 and 7, I will adopt a starting point of 6 months’ imprisonment and reduce to 4 months for the defendant’s guilty plea. For Charges 2, 8 and Charges 10 to 17, for each charge, I will adopt a starting point of 4½ years’ imprisonment and reduce to 3 years for the defendant’s guilty plea. For Charges 5 and 9, I will adopt a starting point of 3 years’ imprisonment and reduce to 2 years for the defendant’s guilty plea.

To achieve the overall term which I have indicated above, I order that the sentences for Charges 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 are to run wholly concurrently with the 3-year term for Charge 2, while 1 year of the term for Charges 10 to 17 are to run consecutively to the term for Charge 2, making a total term of 10 years.