Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments | LexChat

Hong Kong Case Law

Age of consent

  • 25 Sept 2019

    HKSAR v. YEUNG HO NAM

    Citation
    [2019] HKCA 384
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC361/2018

    Section 118C as worded discriminated against male homosexuals and was read down by the court to align maximum penalties with section 124 (life where victim under 13; 5 years where victim aged 13–15). Sentencing for s118C must be gender-neutral and follow existing sentencing principles for underage sexual offences. On the facts (consensual liaison, victim an instigator involved in compensated dating, use of condoms, no grooming or injury, genuine remorse) the appropriate starting point was 12 months per count, reduced by one-third for plea to 8 months per count with 2 months of the second coun…

  • 20 May 2019

    香港特別行政區 訴 陳言洛

    Citation
    [2019] HKCFI 1208
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA540/2018

    So Wai Lun remains binding authority that section 124 is an absolute liability offence making the appellant's belief as to age irrelevant; the trial judge properly assessed credibility and rejected the appellant's evidence, therefore the convictions stand and the appeal is dismissed.

  • 9 May 2018

    HKSAR v. CHOI WAI LUN

    Citation
    [2018] HKCFA 18
    Court
    Court of Final Appeal
    Case number
    FACC11/2017

    Sections 122(1) and (2) do not impose absolute liability as to the complainant's age; the presumption of mens rea is displaced for the age element but the appropriate construction applies the third Kulemesin alternative requiring the accused to prove on the balance of probabilities that he honestly and reasonably believed the complainant was 16 or over, thereby providing a defence and preserving the protective purpose of the statute.

  • 22 Sept 2017

    HKSAR v. CHOI WAI LUN

    Citation
    HKSAR v. CHOI WAI LUN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA620/2016

    The court found the three formulated questions involve points of law of great and general importance, the respondent raised no substantive objection, and therefore granted leave to issue a certificate under Cap 484 s32(2) in respect of those questions; leave to file out of time and to file in English was also granted.

  • 20 Sept 2006

    LEUNG T C WILLIAM ROY v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

    Citation
    LEUNG T C WILLIAM ROY v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACV317/2005

    The Court of Appeal held that it had discretion to entertain an otherwise hypothetical constitutional challenge where exceptional circumstances and sufficient interest existed; section 118C of the Crimes Ordinance (buggery with/by man under 21) discriminated against homosexual men by denying them the only form of sexual intercourse available to them until age 21 and no adequate justification was demonstrated under the proportionality test, so section 118C is inconsistent with the Basic Law and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights and is unconstitutional.

  • 24 Aug 2005

    LEUNG TC WILLIAM ROY v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE

    Citation
    LEUNG TC WILLIAM ROY v. SECRETARY FOR JUSTICE
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCAL160/2004

    The challenged provisions discriminate against homosexual men and arbitrarily interfere with private, consensual sexual autonomy; the differentiation (higher age limit and deeming provisions) lacks an objective, reasonable and proportionate justification and therefore contravenes Basic Law equality rights and the Hong Kong Bill of Rights; accordingly declarations of inconsistency are warranted and the deeming provisions must be struck down or read down as appropriate.

  • 9 Nov 2004

    HKSAR v. SO WAI LUN

    Citation
    HKSAR v. SO WAI LUN
    Court
    Court of First Instance
    Case number
    HCMA39/2004

    The Court held that s124(1) of the Crimes Ordinance is an absolute liability offence in respect of the victim's age; the presumption of mens rea is displaced by necessary implication given the statutory scheme and legislative history (including the 1897 repeal of a belief defence) and therefore a defendant's belief that the girl was 16 or over does not constitute a defence; the Magistrate's acquittal was therefore wrong and must be reversed, with conviction entered and sentencing remitted to the Magistrate.

  • 9 Nov 1983

    THE QUEEN v. CHENG CHI-KEUNG

    Citation
    THE QUEEN v. CHENG CHI-KEUNG
    Court
    Court of Appeal
    Case number
    CACC1067/1983

    The Court held the trial judge correctly left the alternative verdict of indecent assault to the jury given the complainant's age and relevant law, so the conviction was upheld; however the original sentence was based on additional conduct not necessarily established by the jury's verdict, rendering it inappropriate, and the sentence was reduced from three years to 18 months imprisonment.