HKSAR v. HHK

HCCC 405/2019

[2020] HKCFI 1300

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO 405 OF 2019

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

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

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

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

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

COURT: The defendant, HHK, pleaded guilty to the following eight charges before a magistrate. The 1st and the 2nd charge are attempted rape, contrary to sections 118(1) and 159G of the Crimes Ordinance, Chapter 200. Charges 3 to 7, they are rape, contrary to section 118(1) of Cap 200; and the 8th charge is ill-treatment of a child by a person in charge of that child, contrary to section 27(1) of the Offences Against the Person Ordinance, Chapter 212.

Summary of Facts

X is defendant’s daughter born in September 2005, was the victim of all the sexual offences, that is Charge 1 to the 7th charge, while Y is another daughter of the defendant, born in September 2004. She was the victim of the last offence. That is the 8th charge.

The defendant and his wife had three children: X, Y and a boy, Z. Z was born in February 2007, so he was the youngest of the three. In 2009, the defendant’s wife left the family and the defendant became a single parent.

1st Charge, Attempted Rape

When X was 6 years old in 2011, the defendant attempted to rape her. The defendant told X to lie on the sofa with him. He asked her to remove his trousers and he removed hers. While they were lying on the sofa, the defendant moved his exposed penis back and forth towards X’s vagina behind X’s buttock. The defendant pushed his penis hard at X’s vagina in an attempt to rape her. X cried out in great pain. The defendant then molested X’s breasts and moved his erect penis back and forth at X’s private parts for about 10 minutes, but his penis failed to penetrate. X did not know what was happening and she did not resist. Afterwards, the defendant told X not to tell anyone about what he had done to her and X complied.

The 2nd Charge, Attempted Rape

One day in July 2014 when X was 8 years old, the defendant again attempted to rape X at home. On this occasion, the defendant used his erect penis to try to push into X’s vagina. X was sure the defendant was unable to penetrate and she found the action very painful. X did not put up any resistance. Afterwards, she cried in the toilet.

The following five incidents of rape took place when X was 9 to 11 years old.

The 3rd Charge, Rape

Sometime between February and July 2015 when X was 9, the defendant asked her to go out of the room she shared with her sister and her brother. The defendant took X to the sofa in the living room and gave X $500 cash without saying anything. As X already knew what was coming, she took off her clothes. Defendant then took off his clothes and both lay down on the sofa. Defendant inserted his erect penis into X’s vagina from behind. After about 10 minutes the defendant ejaculated into X’s vagina.

The 4th Charge, Rape

On a day in September 2015, when X was 9, defendant raped her again. On this occasion, the defendant was in the living room with all three children. He told X to go into his bedroom to massage him. Inside his bedroom, defendant took off their clothes and hugged X. The defendant then inserted his erect penis into X’s vagina. After a while, the defendant ejaculated into X’s vagina and fell asleep. X pushed the defendant away and returned to her bedroom.

The 5th Charge, Rape

Then one day between May and August 2016 when X was 9 or 10 years old, the defendant’s son, who was then 6 or 7 years old, saw the defendant raping X at home. Z was using the computer at the time. Through the crack of the door, he saw the defendant and X lying naked on the bed and the defendant inserting his penis into X’s vagina. When the defendant discovered that Z was watching, he told Z it was none of his business and continued to rape X. After about 10 minutes, both the defendant and X fell asleep. Z also went to bed.

The 6th charge, Rape

One day in about September 2016 when X was about 10 or 11 years old, she recalled the defendant raped her again at night on her own bed. X was unable to recall other details.

The 7th Charge, Rape

One night between March and July 2017 when X was 11 years old, the defendant asked X to massage him. X agreed and was given $500 cash. X laid on the sofa and undressed herself. The defendant asked X to touch his testicles as he was unable to get an erection. He held her hand to touch his penis. When his penis was erect, he inserted it into X’s vagina. X asked the defendant to do it quickly and the defendant ejaculated on a book near the sofa. After raping her, the defendant told X not to tell anybody, saying he would try his best to buy her anything she wanted. That was the last time the defendant sexually assaulted X.

According to X, the defendant stopped raping her as she had started menstruation and the defendant did not want her to get pregnant. The defendant had not used a condom in any of the incidents mentioned above.

The 8th Charge, Ill-treatment of a Child

This offence concerns the defendant’s eldest daughter, Y. On 12 September 2018 when Y was 14 years old, Y told the defendant she wanted to join a school activity but the defendant refused. When Y reasoned with him, the defendant slapped Y’s face twice. Y persisted and the defendant hit Y’s shoulder with a cloth hanger. When Y continued to try to convince him, the defendant kicked Y’s chest, pulled her hair and told her to take a shower. Y felt pain.

Arrest of the defendant

In September 2018, X told her friends from church about having been sexually abused by the defendant throughout the years. A preacher of the church was alerted and the matter was reported to the police subsequently. On 18 October 2018, the defendant was arrested.

Under caution, the defendant admitted having sexual intercourse with X on two occasions when X was in Primary 5 or 6. He also admitted having assaulted Y. So X was medically examined and seen by a psychologist. Out-of-home care was arranged after she was discharged from the hospital. Recommendation to monitor her mental condition was recommended.

Now, I have psychologist’s report all three children. I will give a bit about their reports.

Psychologist’s report on X

This report was prepared by Ms Lam Siu-ngar, a clinical psychologist of the Social Welfare Department. I do not think it is necessary to repeat all that was said. Suffice it to say that due to X’s optimism and resilience, coupled with ongoing psychological support she has received, X does not suffer from any significant behavioural or emotional difficulties that warrant a clinical diagnosis. Nevertheless, X was observed to be insecure, feeling shame, having difficulties trusting others. X felt betrayed and hurt by her father. She worried about her future and the living arrangement when her father is released from prison in the future.

Her relationship with her siblings suffered as she refrained from telling them her true feeling towards her father’s sexual abuse as she worried about their reactions towards their father. X also disclosed to the clinical psychologist that she felt a significant level of pressure from her family to write to court, asking for a lighter sentence for the defendant.

Psychologist’s report on Y

Y, of course, is the victim of the 8th charge, ill-treatment of a child. This is actually the second time Y was ill-treated by her father, resulting in the defendant being convicted of this offence.

I have an up-to-date report on Y from Ms Lam Choi‑yan, a clinical psychologist of the Social Welfare Department. According to the report, since the defendant’s arrest, Y has stayed at the Po Leung Kuk and she showed positive adjustment despite difficulties at the beginning. Emotionally, Y was relieved that her father can no longer abuse her. Y was ambivalent towards her father. On one hand, she felt that the father should receive punishment for what he had done to X. On the other hand, Y felt sad if the defendant was given a long sentence.

Y felt guilt towards the suffering of her siblings. With the “unspoken survivor guilt” which I understand refers to Y’s feeling of being lucky that she did not suffer to the same extent as her sibling, Y had then become parentified, like a parent, to protect her own siblings while minimizing her own suffering and stress. She harboured strong feelings of anger, insecurity, shame and sadness which she suppressed for a long time.

Y also disclosed that she was asked by her paternal grandmother to copy out a sample letter of mitigation which she said she did after amending some wordings. She was disappointed with her grandmother for siding with her father instead of having concern for her and her siblings.

Psychologist’s report on Z

The same Ms Lam Choi‑yan also prepared an up-to-date report on Z. Z was greatly relieved to be removed from home after the abuse in the family was disclosed, and Z was forced to witness his father’s physical and sexual abuse on his sisters. He was physically and mentally burdened by the need to protect them although, of course, his attempts were futile due to his young age and lack of power.

Z revealed his memories of witnessing his father sexually abuse his elder sister would occasionally pop up in his mind when he was alone in the past. He tried not to think about them. While Z showed resilience to move forward in the current out-of-home placement, such should not be understood as minimal impacts by his father. Z’s reluctance to think about his past experience or to recall memories clearly showed Z’s need to detach himself from the disturbing thoughts and negative emotions associated with painful experiences which is a psychological mechanism to protect himself from his traumatized self.

Background of the defendant

The defendant was born in 1971 and is now 49 years of age. He is not a man of clear record, having nine previous convictions. There were four offences concerning dishonesty, using a false instrument, making/possessing equipment for making a false instrument, obtaining property by deception and fraud. And there was one offence of assisting in the management of a vice establishment and three offences involving violence (common assault and assault occasioning actual bodily harm). He also had one conviction similar to the 8th charge in this case. That is ill-treatment or neglect by those in charge of a child or young person. He had no previous similar conviction of any sexual offences.

The prosecution provided me with more information in the form of a table, the brief circumstances of the previous convictions in relation to the ill-treatment of a child and the offences of violence. The previous ill-treatment-of-a-child offence also related to Y. The incident occurred on 30 April 2013. At the time Y was 8 years old. The defendant became angry when Y refused to do her homework and he used the handle of a broom to hit her, causing her an abrasion on her left arm. The case was reported to the police by the school social worker when Y went to school the next day. Defendant admitted the offence under caution. He was placed on probation for 12 months.

As for the offence of common assault, the defendant hit a staff of a convenience store after a dispute on 4 February 2014. He was sentenced to 3 weeks’ imprisonment suspended for 15 months.

The two offences of AOABH, assault occasioning actual bodily harm, were more serious. On 15 March 2014, the defendant, believing that his son Z was being bullied by three young boys aged 8 and 10 respectively, used a wooden plank to assault them, causing actual bodily harm to them.

(Discussion re clarification of information)

The two offences of AOABH were more serious. On 15 March 2014, the defendant, believing that his son Z was bullied by two young boys aged 8 and 10 respectively, used a wooden plank to assault them, causing actual bodily injuries to them. One suffered from hematoma and abrasion on the left pinna. One sustained abrasion on the left scapular skin area, and the last one suffered from tenderness on the left hip.

(Discussion re clarification of information)

The two offences of AOABH were more serious. On 15 March 2014, the defendant, believing that his son Z was being bullied by two young boys aged 8 and 12 respectively, used a wooden plank to assault them, causing actual bodily injuries to them. One suffered from hematoma and abrasion on the left pinna, and the other one sustained abrasion on the left scapular skin area. The defendant was sentenced to 2 months’ imprisonment for each charge with compensation to the victim in the sum of $1,000. 1 month of the sentence imposed on the 2nd charge was ordered to run consecutively to the 2 months imposed on the 1st charge, therefore making a total of 3 months’ imprisonment, and the suspended sentence of 3 weeks was also activated.

The defendant was educated up to Form 5 and worked as a casual vegetable worker. The defendant married his wife in 2003 and they had three children, X, Y, and Z. The wife left him after a dispute in 2009 and moved to live in the Mainland. The defendant was the single parent raising his three children on his own. He was a recipient of CSSA at the time of arrest.

Mr Phil Chau, counsel for the defendant, admitted the conviction record and agreed with the contents of the table provided by the prosecution mentioned earlier. The background of the defendant as disclosed was also admitted.

Three letters, each one written by one of the three children, were tendered in court in mitigation. X begged this Court to sentence her father to a lesser sentence, saying that her father, being a single parent, took care of them and did all the housework after coming home from work. As her father did not have a steady job, he had to borrow money from the bank to meet the family’s outgoings. X also said the defendant used to bring her and other siblings to play in the park, shopping and eating out.

Y asked this Court to sentence the defendant to a lesser offence. Y said her father loved them very much and took care of them after their mother left. He took them to play in the park. He found work to do when they were at school in order to earn money so that they could have tutorial lessons. He wanted to provide them the same things other children had. Y said her father had made a wrong move momentarily and they had all forgiven him. Y asked this Court to give the defendant a lesson and to let him be released early so that the family can be reunited.

Z also asked this Court to reduce the culpability of his father, saying that his father was remorseful. Z said the defendant was a great dad. His father was the sole provider of the family since their mother left. Z said he had a great time playing computer games with the defendant. Z asked this Court to give the defendant a lesson, saying that there is no need for the lesson to be too severe.

From what was disclosed in the psychologists’ reports on the three children and from the contents of the letters themselves, I do not believe that they genuinely ask for leniency for their father without being pressured into it although, of course, I bear in mind their ambivalent attitude towards their father.

Psychologist’s report on the defendant

I received a report prepared by Dr Yvonne Lee, a clinical psychologist employed by the Correctional Services Department on the defendant. I do not think there is any need to reiterate the report in detail. Suffice it to say that in the opinion of Dr Lee, the defendant’s repeated sexual offending against his own daughter is likely to be related to his sexual preoccupation, impoverished sexual self‑regulation, distorted sex attitude towards X, antisocial tendency and little empathy for X.

His remorse is considered superficial. He showed little empathy for the psychological harm done to X over the prolonged and repeated sexual assault. It should be noted that defendant admitted only three counts of rape to Dr Lee while he had pleaded guilty to five counts of rape and two counts of attempted rape in court. Dr Lee is of the view that the defendant’s risk of re-offending is at the lower end of the moderate range, and psychological intervention addressing his sexual preoccupation, impoverished sexual self-regulation will be helpful should the defendant display genuine treatment motivation.

Further Mitigation

Mr Chau did not take issue of any of the psychologists’ reports. Upon the defendant’s instruction, Mr Chau submitted that the defendant did only admit to three rapes to the psychologist. He said the defendant was agitated at the time and could not understand why he had said that. The defendant admitted that he had committed five rapes on X.

Mr Chau submitted that there are no guidelines in cases of this kind. Reference to other cases can serve as a benchmark for sentencing. He particularly referred to the case of HKSAR v KKK, the facts of which he submitted were similar to the present case but more serious. I will be looking into the differences in these two cases shortly, so I will not mention them here. In short, Mr Chau submitted that this case is not as bad as KKK, so the total starting point should be lower than that in KKK.

Sentence

I will deal with the sexual offences first. Rape and attempted rape are very serious offences. A person convicted of rape on indictment is liable to imprisonment for life. The facts of this case are particularly distressing. Instead of protecting and nurturing his own daughter X, the defendant started to abuse her when she was only 6 years old. He first attempted to rape her when she was 6 years old. He then made another attempt to rape her when she was 8 years old. He finally succeeded in raping her when she was 9 years old and continued to rape her on four more occasions until she was 11 years old and started to have menstruation. He did not use any precaution during all these sexual abuse acts and ejaculated inside X on all but one occasion. As understood or believed by X, the defendant only stopped as he was afraid of getting X pregnant.

I have been referred to a number of authorities by both the prosecution and the defence. There are no sentencing guidelines for offences of this nature as the facts differ greatly from case to case. Sentences imposed in other cases are of limited assistance as a guide to sentencing in this case. Nevertheless, sentencing principles and appropriate sentence imposed on a case of similar circumstances would be of assistance to me in my consideration of the appropriate sentence.

In the case of HKSAR v Li Kin Ho, it is a case of incest, the Court of Appeal said incest struck at the very fabric of family life. Sentences were required to both punish and deter. Depending on the age of the victim, sentences regularly ran from imprisonment of between 6 to 10 years. The offences would be aggravated if intercourse occurred over a long period or if force was used or if pregnancy resulted or if the victim was very young. Although this case is not an incest case, I am of the view that the principles enunciated are also applicable in this case. Although the suggested length of imprisonment may not be applicable here, rape, in my view, is more serious than the offence of incest.

In the case of HKSAR v Chan Kim Kwan, the defendant was convicted of raping a 9-year-old girl 13 times. He was the husband of the girl’s tutor and he had become the girl’s sworn father. His appeal against a total sentence of 15 years was dismissed by the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal accepted the three dimensions mentioned in the case of R v Millberry when considering the gravity of the rape: one, degree of harm to the victim; two, level of culpability of the offender; and three, the level of risk posed by the offender to the society.

In the case of the Secretary for Justice v Huang Long Wei, a case involving a defendant touching the penis of a boy under 10 years old, the Court of Appeal said there were three crucial considerations for the offence of indecent assault on young children by adults:

(a) to deter others from committing similar offences;

(b) to show the abhorrence of members of the public to offences of this nature; and

(c) to redress the grievance suffered by the victim and his or her family and friends.

In the case of HKSAR v Lee Hon Wah, the Court of Appeal was of the view that the court should consider the following in the sentencing of indecent conduct with or towards a child under 16:

(1) the age difference between the defendant and the victim;

(2) 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 at the time of the offence;

(3) whether the defendant had used threats or inducements to make the victim succumb, falling prey to his licentious exploitation;

(4) the number of occasions of committing the offences and the duration of the offences;

(5) whether inappropriate or unnecessary violence was involved in committing the offences and whether any harm or discomfort was caused to the victim;

(6) whether any suitable safety measures were taken in committing the offence and whether any hazard to the health and safety of the victim and the public was caused;

(7) whether the offences have caused physical or psychological trauma to the victim;

(8) whether the offences have impact on the family members of the victim;

(9) was the defendant involved in other inappropriate behaviours such as inviting or permitting other people to watch or take photograph/videos; and

(10) whether the defendant is psychologically imbalanced or paedophilic and the likelihood of re-offending.

Adopting these principles to the present case, it can be seen that the offences committed by the defendant on X are extremely serious. His sexual abuse of X was a gross breach of trust. He started by attempting to rape X when X was a 6-year-old child and he himself was a grown man of 40. He eventually succeeded in raping her when X was slightly older, 9 years old. He persisted in raping X until X started menstruation at the age of 11. He took no precaution whatsoever. He made use of his relationship with and his authority over X to ensure that X did not tell anybody about such acts. While he did not use any threat or force over and above what was needed to commit rape on X, he paid X money and promised her he would buy her things, no doubt to ensure X continued to allow him to take advantage of her sexually and to silence her.

While the condition of X does not warrant a clinical diagnosis at present, X was observed to be insecure, feeling shame and having difficulties trusting others. X also felt betrayed and hurt by the defendant which are totally understandable under the circumstances.

The defendant was corrupting the young mind of Z. The defendant, by not closing the door of his bedroom properly, allowed Z, his younger son of 6 or 7, to witness him having sex with X. Upon finding out that Z was watching, he simply told Z that it was none of Z’s business and continued to rape X. This despicable act of the defendant shows that he was only concerned with his need to satisfy his sexual urge and he used his power or authority as a parent over a young child to silence the latter. One can imagine the shock experienced by this young boy and the psychological harm caused to him. Indeed, as disclosed by the psychologist’s report, Z is still not ready to handle such painful experience and has adopted a not-to-think-about-it mechanism to protect himself from the traumatized self.

The defendant did not take any safety precaution on all those occasions when he sexually assaulted X and ejaculated into X’s vagina on all but one of the rapes. No doubt the defendant did that to enhance his own sexual pleasure. The defendant stopped when X started menstruation. Nevertheless, X was exposed to the risk of pregnancy when she started ovulating but before the manifestation of menstruation. X was also exposed to a risk of sexually transmitted disease. Fortunately for X, neither scenario took place.

The behaviour of the defendant was so gross that the sentence must be of a deterrent nature to ensure others do not follow suit and to demonstrate the abhorrence felt by the society.

In the case of HKSAR v KKK, the defendant pleaded guilty to rape and the indecent conduct towards a child under 16. The defendant and his wife had three daughters. He raped one daughter on four occasions when she was 12, 13 and 14 respectively. He raped another daughter on two occasions when she was 10 and 11 respectively. He made another 9‑year‑old daughter pluck his pubic hair. The trial judge imposed a total of 23 years and 7 months’ imprisonment for all seven offences. On appeal, the Court of Appeal reduced the total sentence to 18 years.

In the judgment, the Court of Appeal rejected the argument that raping one’s daughter was not as serious as raping a stranger. The Court of Appeal said that the abuse of a child by a parent or a person in the position of a parent was a damnable breach of trust against which the society at large, ultimately through the court, assume the duty proactively to protect the child and to visit condign punishment upon offenders.

I agree with Mr Chau that the circumstance of this case is quite similar to those in KKK. I of course bear in mind that in KKK, two daughters, that is X when she was 12 to 14 and Y when she was 10 to 11, were raped and one was pregnant as a result of the rape whereas in the present case the defendant attempted to rape and succeeded in raping one daughter.

It must also be remembered that X was much younger when the sexual assault started and lasted for five years. That is from 6 years old to 11 years old. KKK was also convicted of doing an act of gross indecency against another daughter, aged 9. Of course, the defendant does not have that offence. KKK had an extensive criminal record which included two sexual offences, that is unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 16 and indecent assault, whereas the defendant in the present case does not have any previous conviction of sexual offences.

The defendant in KKK showed a high degree of psychopathic traits and his risk of sexual recidivism was assessed to be moderate to high whereas in respect of this defendant, the psychologist said the defendant’s first sexual conviction at the index offence and the absence of deviant sexual interest does not point to a high risk of sexual re-offending.

Finally, in KKK, there is evidence that all children need long-term psychotherapy. In the present case, at least there is no indication of immediate need of psychological intervention at this stage, although no one knows what kind of long-term harm will surface later.

I will now consider the appropriate sentence for each offence, bearing in mind the principle already mentioned before considering the appropriate overall sentence to be imposed.

The 1st Charge

On the first occasion, the act of attempted rape was very close to an act of rape. The defendant tried hard to insert his erect penis into X’s vagina. Sexual intercourse did not take place not because of any desistance on the defendant’s part but because he was not able to penetrate, probably due to X’s tender age. His thrusting at X’s vagina caused her great pain. One can imagine the shock and disbelief felt by this 6-year-old child when she did not understand what was going on, wondering why her own father, the only parent she had at the time, was causing her such pain. I am of the view that a sentence of 9 years after trial is appropriate.

The 2nd Charge

The circumstances of this offence were almost the same to those of the 1st charge except that X was two years older, that is 8 years old. Again, the defendant did not succeed in penetrating X not because of any desistance on his part. Yes, it should be -- yes. Not because of your desistance but because you were unable to do so. As this is a repeated offence, although X was not then as young as 6, so I am of the view that also a sentence of 9 years after trial is appropriate.

3rd Charge

On this occasion the defendant succeeded in raping X when X was only 9 years old. The defendant gave X $500 before raping her, no doubt as a form of bribe or inducement corrupting X. The sexual intercourse took about 10 minutes and the defendant ejaculated inside X. I am of the view that a sentence of 15 years is appropriate after trial.

4th Charge

This is a repeated rape on X about seven months after the first rape. X was still 9 years old at the time. No money was given to X on this occasion. I am of the view that 15 years’ imprisonment is appropriate after trial for this offence.

The 5th Charge

On this occasion, X was 10 years old and the rape was witnessed by the defendant’s young son. Clearly, the defendant did not care whether his degrading act was witnessed by his other children. Upon being noticed by Z, he simply told Z it was none of his business and continued to rape X. His depraving act not only hurt X but his attitude and behaviour towards Z also caused psychological damage to Z. I am of the view that 16 years is appropriate after trial.

The 6th Charge

The defendant raped X again when X was 10 or 11 years old. X could not remember the details but again the defendant had unprotected sex with X. As it was a repeated offence and X was still of tender age, the appropriate sentence after trial is one of 15 years.

7th Charge

This is the last time the defendant raped X when X was 11 years old. He gave X $500 on this occasion after he asked X to massage him. He got X to touch his penis to effect erection before inserting it into X’s vagina. X asked the defendant to be quick and he ejaculated on a book. He told X not to tell anybody and that he would try his best to buy her anything she wanted. I am of the view that 16 years is an appropriate sentence after trial.

Mitigating Factors

The only mitigating factor I can see is the defendant’s early plea to which he is entitled to a full one-third discount. I am prepared to give the defendant another slight discount of 3 months as his daughter X is spared of the ordeal of having to give evidence in court. I would add that also include Z who would not have to come and mention how he witnessed his father raping his own sister. Apart from these two factors, I see no grounds to further reduce the sentence to be imposed despite the pleas made by your children on your behalf.

Totality of the sentence of the offences relating to X

The sentence on the 1st to 7th charge after discount are as follows. This is only the one‑third, not with the 3 months’ discount. So 1st charge, 6 years; 2nd charge, 6 years; 3rd charge, 10 years; 4th charge, 10 years; 5th charge, 10 years and 8 months; 6th charge, 10 years; 7th charge, 10 years and 8 months.

After considering the totality principle, I am of the view that a total sentence of 24 years after trial properly reflects the gravity of these sexual offences, the culpability of the defendant and the abhorrence felt by the society. So with the one-third discount and the additional 3 months’ discount mentioned above, the total sentence to be served by the defendant for all these sexual offences is one of 15 years and 9 months. So to achieve this aim, the sentence will be as follows: 1st charge, 6 years; 2nd charge, 6 years; 3rd charge, 10 years; 4th charge, 10 years; 5th charge, 10 years and 8 months; 6th charge, 10 years; all these sentence to run concurrently, making a total of 10 years and 8 months.

For the 7th charge, the sentence of 10 years and 8 months, 5 years and 1 month of this sentence to run consecutively to the 10 years and 8 months imposed on the 1st to 6th charge, making a total of 15 years and 9 months.

8th Charge

Now, I will now deal with the last offence of ill-treatment of a child by a person in charge of that child. A person convicted of this offence on indictment is liable to 10 years’ imprisonment. At the time of the offence, the victim Y was 14 years age. The defendant first slapped Y on the face and then used a cloth hanger to hit Y’s shoulder followed by kicking Y’s chest with his leg and pulling her hair. Whatever the defendant’s views were of the request made by Y, that is to join a school activity, his violent act towards Y is simply unacceptable.

The defendant already had a similar conviction in 2013 and he was put on probation for 12 months on that occasion. I am of the view that a short term of imprisonment is called for. I consider 6 weeks’ imprisonment appropriate here. The defendant is entitled to a full one-third discount for his plea, so the sentence is one of 4 weeks. As the defendant is already sentenced to a total of 15 years and 9 months’ imprisonment, I order this 4 weeks’ imprisonment to run concurrently with the sentence imposed for the sexual offences.

In other words, for all eight charges, the defendant is sentenced to a total of 15 years and 9 months’ imprisonment.