HKSAR v. CHAN KAM PO

HCCC16/2009

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINSTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 16 OF 2009

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

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

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

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

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

COURT:  Chan Kam-po, you were convicted after trial of the rape of Miss Lai Mui-kwai; that is Count 1; and of two counts of controlling her for the purpose of prostitution, Counts 2 and 3. 

Count 2 related to a period in June 2008; Count 3 to 1 and 2 July 2008. 

Miss Lai was a young woman of 18 years of age, but with the adaptive functioning of a girl of 12½.  Her full-scale IQ was 61.  It would have been apparent to anyone dealing with her for any period of time that she was a young woman of very low intelligence.  She had had short-lived jobs as a waitress, but had, in her own words, been bullied by colleagues.  Unable to find a job shortly after her 18th birthday, some so-called friends had induced her to “receive customers” by having sex with them.  It appears from the evidence that that may well have been occasioned or contributed to by arguments she was having at home at the time.

During that period of time she met Yau Wai-man, whom she believed had become her boyfriend.  He, together with Yuen Chun-yip, tricked her into working as a prostitute for them by pretending that Yau owed a debt to Yuen which Miss Lai was asked to pay off.

Even before you had first met Miss Lai, you had been told by Yau and Yuen of the deceit that they had practised on Miss Lai.

On the second and third nights she had worked for Yau and Yuen, she was reluctant to turn up for work and had come late, and it was because of that that your services were engaged.  Yuen and Yau took her to you in a flat near Mong Kok market and told you to “look after” her for them.  They then left.

You were in a position to keep an eye on her because you were the person in charge of an establishment called Hoi Yuet 88 Finger Cure, which had seven bedrooms, during the daytime.  You escorted Miss Lai back to Hoi Yuet 88, and for a number of days, at least on the days that you were working, you would watch over her during the daytime hours between the time she was brought back in the morning after serving customers through the night until the time she was taken away in the evening to do the same thing again.

You did not confine yourself simply to keeping watch over her.  At times, you would be the person who took her out to wait for customers at the junction of Soy Street and Shanghai Street, and then accompany her to establishments where she would have sex with customers.  During the daytime, you prevented her from leaving the premises, and often from leaving the room which you had assigned to her.  On one occasion, you had pulled her hair and slapped her when she had attempted to leave the premises.

Yuen Chun-yip would provide you with ketamine for you to dispense to Miss Lai each day after she had returned from work.  It appears that the principal means used by you to control Miss Lai was by threatening to call Yuen Chun-yip, of whom you knew she was very scared.

At one stage, you asked her to keep watch out for customers of the premises while you took a nap.  During the time you were taking a nap, she escaped and returned to her family.  That initial period is the subject of Count 1.

It was on one of those days during this first period that the jury found that you had raped Miss Lai.  At one point during the day in question, you entered her room.  You offered to give her ketamine in return for sex.  You also threatened to call Yuen Chun-yip if she did not comply.  She refused, but you pushed her down on the bed and took off her clothes, and then, after pinning down her arms, you forced her to have sex with you.  At one point, when she was attempting to push you away, you slapped her face twice.  The rape is the subject of Count 1.

After she had escaped and returned to her parents, you participated with Yau and Yuen in a ruse to get her back under your control.  After Yau had invited her out on what she believed to be a date, you and Yuen pretended to come across them by chance in a café.  She was led to believe that Yau still had not repaid the so-called debt and was in trouble for not having done so.

The presence of you and Yuen, of whom she was particularly afraid, was clearly designed to show her that she had no choice but to return to prostitution.  You then escorted her back to Hoi Yuet 88, where she got changed and ready for work.  She was taken out for work that night and brought back to your workplace the following morning.

During the course of that morning, Yuen went into the room where she was and assaulted her, causing her nose to bleed.  You were aware that this was happening.  After Yuen left, you saw that she was very scared.  She was shivering and crying.  She told you that she did not want to receive customers any more.  You pretended to sympathise with her, and told her she could call her mother and make a report to the police, or could escape.  You promised that you would not tell Yuen.

However, when later she did call her mother and discuss making a report to the police, you called Yuen, who came round to the premises and took her away.

I accept that you may have been unaware of any assaults that Yuen subsequently inflicted on Miss Lai.  You were, however, complicit in the continued controlling of Miss Lai for prostitution, as Yau brought her back to your workplace to change for work that evening.

It was while she was later on her way back to work that the police car came across her and she was rescued.

Although you may not have instigated the scheme, you became an active participant in controlling this very vulnerable, mentally retarded woman for the purpose of prostitution.  Effectively, you were assisting in imprisoning her so she could be exploited as a prostitute.  I have no doubt that if you had not yet received remuneration for your services, you would have done so later.  During the period she was being guarded by you, you took advantage of the situation to rape her.  Her mental retardation, albeit mild, is a factor of serious aggravation.

I am satisfied that the appropriate starting points on each offence are as follows:

Count 1, rape:  7 years’ imprisonment.

Count 2:  3 years’ imprisonment.

Count 3:  3 years’ imprisonment.

You cannot claim in mitigation that you are a person of good character.  You have a string of previous convictions, including one for managing a vice establishment.  There are no facts that warrant any discount from these starting points.

I am of the view that an overall sentence of 8½ years' imprisonment is appropriate in your case, and I pass sentence as follows:

Count 1:  7 years’ imprisonment.

Count 2:  3 years’ imprisonment, 9 months of which are to run consecutively to the sentence on Count 1.

Count 3:  3 years’ imprisonment, 9 months of which are to run consecutively to the sentences on Counts 1 and 2; making a total of 8½ years’ imprisonment.