HKSAR v. L. Z. X. AND ANOTHER

HCCC 165/2025

[2026] HKCFI 773

IN THE HIGH COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE

CRIMINAL CASE NO. 165 OF 2025

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR SENTENCE

________________________

The Charges

1.  On 6 May 2025, in the Eastern Magistracy, the 1^st defendant pleaded guilty to one count of common assault and one count of wounding with intent (jointly with the 2^nd defendant)  contrary to sections 40 and 17(a)  respectively of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212; whereas the 2^nd defendant pleaded guilty to one count of rape contrary to section 118(1)  of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200, and one count of wounding with intent (jointly with the 1^st defendant)  contrary to section 17(a)  of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap. 212.  On the same day, they admitted a Summary of Facts dated 30 April 2025 and they were committed to the Court of First Instance for sentencing.

2.  On 4 February 2026, before this Court, the two defendants confirmed their guilty pleas to their respective charges and they admitted a revised set of Summary of Facts dated 3 February 2026.  Given the young age of the 1^st defendant (now aged 16 years and 9 months), the Court ordered a report on suitability for Detention Centre or Training Centre (“the Suitability Report”)  and sought assistance from the Young Offender Assessment Panel to provide their co-ordinated professional view on the appropriate sentencing of the 1^st defendant.  As to the 2^nd defendant (now aged 19 years and 3 months), given the seriousness of his offences, the Court only ordered a background report to have more information about him.  The reports were duly prepared and furnished to the Court for the sentencing hearing on 25 February 2026.  

Facts Admitted

3.  The facts of the case can be summarized as follows.

Incident of rape

4.  The victim of rape in this case (“X”)  was a girl aged 14 at the time of the incident.  She came to know the two defendants through common friends a few months before the incident.

5.  On the evening of 26 December 2023, when X was hanging out with another girl in Mong Kok, they met a group including the two defendants, a boy aged 14 and named Wong (“Wong”)  and others.  All of them (including X)  then went to the rooftop of a building to chat and smoke.  They later decided to go to an hourly hotel room to continue chatting there.

6.  During their walk to the hourly hotel, the 2^nd defendant kept on holding X’s hand and asking her to be his girlfriend.  X refused and tried to retract her hand but the 2^nd defendant continued holding it.

7.  Upon their arrival at the Oriental Hotel, X, the two defendants and Wong entered a room.  The 2^nd defendant first pulled X to the only bed in the room.  He began hugging and kissing X under a blanket.  As the 2^nd defendant was about to take off X’s pants, X said no.  He replied, “Do you think you can leave here”.  He then took off her pants whilst X kept on saying no.  As X was afraid of the 2^nd defendant and of being beaten up by him, she dared not leave the room.

8.  The 2^nd defendant soon took off X’s clothes and inserted his penis into X’s vagina with a condom.  The sexual intercourse lasted for about 5 minutes during which X kept on saying no and struggling.  She also called her god-brother with her phone, saying that someone was having sexual intercourse against her will and asking for help.

9.  The 2^nd defendant paused for a while, took off the condom and then had unprotected sexual intercourse with X.  Again, X kept on saying no, struggling and dodging away from him.  The intercourse ended when a staff came to knock on the door, saying time of the room was up.

10.  X then left the room slowly as she was afraid of being taken back into the room.  When she was halfway down the stairs, she started running to escape.  At the downstairs of the hotel, X saw her male friend (aged 16, “PW2”)  and then her boyfriend (also aged 16, “PW3”)  and X hugged PW3 there.

Incident of common assault and wounding with intent

11.  When the 2^nd defendant saw X hugging PW3, he asked PW3 who he was.  PW3 replied that he was X’s boyfriend.  The two defendants then started punching PW3’s head with fists a few times.  As PW2 tried to stop them, the 1^st defendant punched PW2’s stomach with his fists for three times.  The 1^st defendant also pushed PW2’s right chest and that made PW2 lose balance and bump onto the metal gate of a shop.

12.  Meanwhile, the 2^nd defendant strangled PW3 and forcibly escorted him to a park nearby where the two defendants continued to assault PW3 with fists and kicks.  When PW3 was on his knees, the two defendants banged PW3’s head against some metal railings.  Although PW3 managed to get up, the two defendants continued to assault PW3 with fists and kicks.  Eventually, PW3 lay face down on the ground and lost consciousness.  PW2 arrived at the scene and told the two defendants to stop.  The two defendants then left and PW2 made a report to the police.

Medical examinations

13.  X, PW2 and PW3 were all sent to a hospital.  Upon medical examination, some external injuries were found on X, but it was inconclusive as to whether they were caused by the 2^nd defendant during the rape.  No injury was noted on X’s private parts.

14.  For PW2, tenderness over his abdomen was noted.  For PW3, he was found to have sustained right parietal scalp haematoma, tenderness over right arch at his head, tenderness and bruising over left periorbital region near his eye, as well as swelling and superficial lacerations over his lips.  PW3 was discharged from the hospital on the same day.

The 1^st defendant’s admissions

15.  The 1^st defendant surrendered to the police on 28 December 2023.  Under verbal caution, he admitted taking part in assaulting PW2 and PW3.  In a subsequent video-recorded interview, he made further admissions of his involvement in the attack.

16.  The 1^st defendant also admitted in the revised Summary of Facts that at all material times, he had wounded PW3 with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.

The 2^nd defendant’s admissions

17.  The 2^nd defendant was arrested on 17 January 2024.  Under verbal caution, he admitted having had sex with X and having known that she was underage, but he denied having raped her.  In a subsequent video-recorded interview, he made further admissions of his involvement in the rape and the attack on PW3.

18.  The 2^nd defendant also admitted in the revised Summary of Facts that at all material times, he had raped X knowing that she was underage and that he had wounded PW3 with intent to do him grievous bodily harm.

Victim Impact Report

19.  To assist the Court in sentencing the rape offence, the Prosecution submitted a Victim Impact Report dated 9 January 2026 and prepared by Clinical Psychologist Ms Tso Chi-wai Janet.  Ms Tso concluded that the information collected from X, her mother and from the test findings suggests that the offence does not have a detrimental effect on X’s overall psychological functioning and that X is able to function adequately in daily living without major impairment in important areas of functioning.  However, X does display post-traumatic stress responses with avoidance identified as her primary coping mechanism.  In addition, X worries about trusting others due to the fear they may have sexual intent rather than authentic interest or respect.  If her apprehension persists, her intimate relationship may be negatively affected in the long run.  Nonetheless, X does not find the need to receive psychotherapy and she has established connections with social workers who can provide assistance if required, which she regards as sufficient for her current needs.

Background and Mitigation

The 1^st defendant

20.  The 1^st defendant was born in the Mainland in 2009.  He was aged 14 at the time of the offences and is now aged 16 years and 9 months.  He has been living with his mother, who raised him as a single parent and worked as a cleaner.  He was educated up to Form 3 in Hong Kong and has thereafter done some casual part-time works, such as serving at the KFC.

21.  In June 2023, he was convicted of theft and sentenced to 15 months’ probation order.  Upon his arrest for the present case, the magistracy considered that he had breached the probation order and resentenced him to the Detention Centre on 28 May 2024.  When he was released from the Detention Centre on 28 October 2024, he was remanded for the present case in Pik Uk Correctional Institution until released on bail on 12 December 2024.  After his release, he managed to stay out of trouble and completed the statutory supervision under the Correctional Services Department on 27 October 2025.  For the purpose of obtaining the Suitability Report, the 1^st defendant was again remanded in Pik Uk Correctional Institution from 4 February 2026 until 25 February 2026.  Whilst on remand, he managed to behave himself without committing any disciplinary offence.

22.  Both the Young Offender Assessment Panel and the Suitability Report recommended that the 1^st defendant be sentenced to the Detention Centre for further rehabilitation in respect of his present offences.  

23.  In mitigation, counsel for the 1^st defendant, Ms Tjia, submitted that the 1^st defendant grew up in a single-parent family and his mother was busy making a living; therefore he received most of the love and care from his friends and peers.  On the day of the incident, the 1^st defendant was celebrating Christmas with his friends and as he cherished their friendship, he foolishly believed that he was just helping out his friend (the 2^nd defendant)  in a dispute over a romantic relationship.  He regretted about the incident almost immediately after returning home.  Having frankly told his mother about his wrong-doing, he surrendered to the police on the next day and admitted his offences under caution and in the video-recorded interview.

24.  In relation to the 1^st defendant’s previous theft conviction and his commission of the present offences whilst under probation, Ms Tjia submitted that he had already paid his price as he was resentenced to the Detention Centre; and he has now served the Detention Centre Order and completed the statutory supervision.  Ms Tjia urged this Court not to consider his breach of probation as an aggravating factor when sentencing the 1^st defendant for the present offences.

25.  Ms Tjia submitted an assessment result and a certificate of the 1^st defendant, which demonstrated that he had continued with his VTC course upon his last release from the Detention Centre and he had passed all the subjects.  Ms Tjia also submitted that the 1^st defendant received various awards for his service at school and for various achievements and that he was not a violent person in nature.  Ms Tjia contended that the 1^st defendant now understands the importance of abiding by the law and not resorting to any violence under all circumstances.

26.  On sentencing, Ms Tjia submitted that the 1^st defendant is still young and public interest calls for a meaningful chance to rehabilitate, apart from the need for deterrence and retribution.  Ms Tjia contended that PW2 and PW3 did not sustain serious or long-term injuries and no weapon was used during the incident.  Ms Tjia invited this Court to consider this case as not on the more serious spectrum amongst other cases involving similar charges.  Ms Tjia further submitted that the two counts arose out of the same dispute and thus pleaded for the Court’s leniency in considering concurrent terms of sentence.  Ms Tjia also urged the Court to adopt the recommendation made by the Young Offender Assessment Panel and sentence the 1^st defendant to the Detention Centre for the two offences.

The 2^nd defendant

27.  The 2^nd defendant was born in Hong Kong.  He was aged 17 at the time of the offences and is now aged 19 years and 3 months.  He came from a single-parent family and his mother who is not in good health no longer works in order to take care of his younger sister.  The 2^nd defendant was educated up to Form 2 but has since become unemployed.  He has a number of criminal records involving convictions of blackmail, wounding with intent and assault occasioning actual bodily harm in 2020 and a conviction of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 13 in 2022 (for which he was sent to the Rehabilitation Centre).  In May 2024, he was convicted of inflicting grievous bodily harm and criminal damage and was sentenced to the Training Centre, at which he is still currently receiving training.

28.  In mitigation, counsel for the 2^nd defendant, Mr. Ching, referred to the sentencing authorities submitted by the prosecution and drew this Court’s attention to some of the aggravating factors that existed in those cases but are not present in the instant case. 

29.  For the charge of rape, Mr. Ching submitted that, unlike R v Lau Chin Yu [2007] 1 HKC 104, the victim in this case was not mentally incapacitated and there was no breach of trust on the part of the 2^nd defendant.  Mr. Ching then applied the aggravating factors set out in R v Billam [1986] 1 WLR 349 and submitted that:

(1)  No violence was used;

(2)  No weapon was used;

(3)  The rape was not a repeated offence as the 2^nd defendant was charged only with one count of rape;

(4)  The rape had not been planned;

(5)  Although the 2^nd defendant has a previous conviction for unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 13 and previous convictions involving the use of violence and threat, he has no previous conviction of rape;

(6)  The victim was not subjected to sexual indignities or perversions;

(7)  The victim was aged 14 at the time of the offence; and

(8)  Pursuant to the Victim Impact Report dated 9 January 2026, the incident did not seem to have caused any “catastrophic effect” on the victim.

30.  For the charge of wounding with intent, Mr. Ching referred to the sentencing factors in HKSA v Roka Sijan [2018] HKCA 986 and submitted that the 2^nd defendant assaulted the victim mainly with bare fists and kicks and without the use of a weapon. Mr. Ching further submitted that this case was not the most serious of its kind as the victim did not suffer any permanent injury.  Mr. Ching also invited this Court not to enhance the 2^nd defendant’s sentence on the basis of his similar convictions of violent offences in the past.

31.  Mr. Ching noted that the two offences by the 2^nd defendant were of a different nature, and the defence accepted that their sentences would not run wholly concurrently.  Mr. Ching invited the Court to order at least part of the sentences to run concurrently.  He also pleaded for the most lenient sentences that could be imposed on the 2^nd defendant.

32.  Lastly, Mr. Ching produced three letters in mitigation, written by the defendant, his father and mother respectively, all registering the seriousness of the offences on the one hand, and pleading for leniency on the other.

Sentence for the 2^nd defendant

33.  I shall first deal with the rape offence committed by the 2^nd defendant.  The Court of Appeal has reiterated in many cases the sentencing principles involving sexual assault on a child.  The Court has to protect innocent, trusting children and prevent vulnerable persons from sexual assault which would cause them physical and psychological trauma; and it is necessary for the Court to adopt deterrent sentences to deter others from committing similar offences.  Such deterrent sentences are to show the abhorrence of members of the public to crimes of this nature and to redress the grievance suffered by the victims and their families: see HKSAR v Tai Yi Nam [2006] 1 HKLRD 468; and HKSAR v Tsang Chiu Tak [2013] 1 HKLRD 427.

34.  In the present case, there are aggravating factors involved in the commission of the rape offence: (1)  the victim was only aged 14 at the time; (2)  the latter part of the sexual intercourse was committed without protection; and (3)  the 2^nd defendant has a previous conviction of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 13 (dated 17 May 2022): see SJ v Lau Yun Leung [1999] 3 HKLRD 289.  On the other hand, the offence was apparently not pre-meditated and was committed without disproportionate violence or any sexual indignities.

35.  Given the seriousness of the offence of rape, I find that there is no other way to suitably deal with the 2^nd defendant except to impose a term of imprisonment.  I would use a starting point of 5 years’ imprisonment for the rape offence in the present case, which is to be enhanced to 6½ years because of the presence of the aforesaid aggravating factors.  By virtue of the 2^nd defendant’s guilty plea, I will discount the enhanced starting point by one-third, reducing it to 4 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.  I have considered the 2^nd defendant’s background report.  Given the seriousness of the offence, I do not see any other mitigating factor that is applicable to the present case.  The 2^nd defendant is thus sentenced to a term of 4 years and 4 months’ imprisonment for the rape offence.

36.  For the offence of wounding with intent, I note that the 2^nd defendant committed the offence together with the 1^st defendant and they punched and kicked PW3 and banged his head against some metal railings which eventually led to PW3 losing consciousness at the scene; on the other hand, whilst some injuries were caused to PW3, he was discharged from the hospital on the same day.  I shall use a starting point of 21 months’ imprisonment and enhance it to 24 months’ imprisonment given the 2^nd defendant’s previous convictions of violence.  By virtue of the 2^nd defendant’s guilty plea, I will discount the enhanced starting point by one-third, reducing it to 1 years and 4 months’ imprisonment.  

37.  Applying the totality principle and looking at the whole incident in the round, I find that a total sentence of 4 years and 10 months’ imprisonment to be appropriate for the 2^nd defendant’s two offences.  I thus order 6 months of the sentence for the offence of wounding with intent to run consecutively with the sentence for the rape offence, making a total sentence of 4 years and 10 months’ imprisonment for the two offences. 

Sentence for the 1^st defendant

38.  The 1^st defendant is now aged 16 years and 9 months.  To assist the Court in sentencing him for the offences of common assault and wounding with intent, the Suitability Report was obtained and the Young Offender Assessment Panel was consulted.  Both the Suitability Report and the Panel recommended that the 1^st defendant be sentenced to the Detention Centre for further rehabilitation. 

39.  The 1^st defendant was aged 14 at the time of the offences.  He has only one prior criminal conviction of theft recorded in June 2023, for which he was put on probation for 15 months but subsequently resentenced to the Detention Centre.  During the training period at the Detention Centre, the 1^st defendant managed to behave himself without committing any disciplinary offence and he showed steady progress in the training programme.  After release from the Detention Centre, he completed the one-year supervision without breaching any statutory requirements.  For the purpose of obtaining the Suitability Report and the recommendation from the Young Offender Assessment Panel, he was remanded for 21 days (up to 25 February 2026)  and again he behaved himself without committing any disciplinary offence. 

40.  According to the Suitability Report, the 1^st defendant is mentally and physically fit for detention in a Detention Centre or a Training Centre, but in light of all the available information and after a general assessment of his behaviour and attitude whilst on remand, it was considered more suitable for the 1^st defendant to be detained in a Detention Centre.

41.  On the other hand, the Young Offender Assessment Panel observed that the 1^st defendant showed remorse for his violent behaviours.  Considering his high susceptibility to dubious peers’ influence, the Panel took the view that the 1^st defendant requires further strict disciplinary training to deter him from re-offending and develop a regulated living.  The Panel thus recommended a Detention Centre programme for the 1^st defendant.

42.  This Court observes that the 1^st defendant has no similar prior conviction and his previous training at the Detention Centre appeared to have produced positive rehabilitative effects on him.  Whilst the wounding offence committed by the 1^st defendant was a serious one, given his relatively young age, his genuine remorse and the two periods of remand (some 9 weeks in total)  that he has already served in Pik Uk Correctional Institution for the present case, I am persuaded to pass a sentence to enable his further reform and rehabilitation as recommended by the Young Offender Assessment Panel.  I therefore sentence the 1^st defendant to the Detention Centre for both offences.