THE QUEEN v. KONG WAI KIN

_______________

___________

JUDGMENT

___________

Barker, J. A.:

1. The applicant in this case was charged with a number of offences of rape and one of buggery. They were rapes and an act of buggery on very young girls. He pleaded not guilty and all these children were forced to go into the witness box and give evidence. But after some 30 days, he changed his plea and pleaded guilty to 4 charges of rape and one of buggery.

2. His method of operation, as the judge pointed out, took two forms. First, he would pose as a policeman or some other person in authority, tell the children that they had done something wrong and call them to follow him to some deserted place. When he got there he would order all of them to undress and then he raped them on one occasion he buggered the girl. The other method he used was to accuse the girl of having insulted his brother or some other relative and then the same thing occurred. He was indifferent to the pain that he inflicted upon these girls whom he raped or buggered and he initially expressed no remorse, forcing them all to go through the agony of giving evidence at the trial.

3. A psychiatric report was obtained upon him and according to what he told the psychiatrist, (and we have only his word for it), his reason for doing this was that he had been reading pornographic magazines. It is an unfortunate fact that many people read pornographic magazines but they do not go out thereafter and rape small children.

4. Dr. Cheung in his careful report says in one of his opinions: "Regarding his dangerousness, as the best guide to a person's behaviour in the future is his behaviour in the past and as he has already demonstrated his dangerousness by repeatedly inflicting probable lasting psychological harm to children, he should be segregated from society for a prolonged period of time in the interest of the public." We agree. He may have had a troubled family history. He may have a brother who is in prison and a sister who is psychotic. But these are no reasons why serious and condign punishment should not be passed upon him for these terrible offences which he has committed. There is only one point that is in his favour. That is his age. He is at the moment only 19 years of age and were it not for that the sentences which the learned judge passed upon him would be entirely appropriate. But because of his age, and because of that only, this Court feels constrained to reduce his sentence. Nevertheless, the sentences which he must serve will still be long. Accordingly we allow the application for leave to appeal against sentence, we treat the hearing of the application as the hearing of the appeal, we set aside the sentences of 20 years' imprisonment on each of these counts and we substitute therefor a sentence of 15 years' imprisonment on each count, such sentences to run concurrently.