Hong Kong Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Buggery

Legal area

Court

13 Jun 2024

HKSAR v. LEE KWOK WAI

Citation

[2024] HKCA 538
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC289/2021

The Court upheld the sentence because the judge correctly identified and applied aggravating factors — including the appellant's recent lengthy prison sentence for similar offences, his established paedophilia and high risk of reoffending, the severe trauma to the 15‑year‑old victim exacerbated by photographic/video recordings, the large age gap, absence of protection and duration/repetition of assaults — and reasonably imposed partly consecutive sentences consistent with the totality principle; the overall sentence of 9 years and 4 months was not manifestly excessive.
19 Aug 2016

HKSAR v. CHAND GILL

Citation

HKSAR v. CHAND GILL
Court

Court of Final Appeal
Case number

FAMC17/2016

The leave application was dismissed because the Court concluded that (1) the summing-up as a whole adequately instructed the jury on how to treat the defendant's VRI including the Liberato principle; (2) the specimen directions on mixed statements and election not to testify were fair and not confusing; and (3) counsel's inconsistency in presenting the Count 4 case did not render the Count 3 buggery conviction unsafe since the accused admitted penetration and the disputed issue on Count 3 was whether penetration was accidental or intentional, which the jury resolved against the accused.
12 Jul 2007

HKSAR v. LI KIM CHING

Citation

HKSAR v. LI KIM CHING
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC208/2006

The jury were properly directed and fully informed of credibility issues; the subjective test for recklessness as clarified by R v G and Sin Kam Wah did not render the directions or outcome unsafe; the credibility discrepancies were matters for the jury and did not create a lurking doubt warranting overturning the convictions, therefore the convictions and sentences were upheld.
22 Jul 2002

HKSAR v. YEE YIU SAM

Citation

HKSAR v. YEE YIU SAM
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC530/2001

The court held that although a judge cannot lawfully sentence on the basis of non-consent equivalent to conviction under section 118A where the prosecution accepted a plea to section 118D in the alternative and left the non-consent count on the file, the judge may examine the framework and circumstances in which consent was given (age disparity, dominance, control) as aggravating factors; on the facts the starting point and sentence were not manifestly excessive and the sentence was upheld.
5 Jul 2000

HKSAR v. HUI KA SANG

Citation

HKSAR v. HUI KA SANG
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC73/2000

The sentence of 10 years' imprisonment per count (to run concurrently) was justified because the offences involved a very young and intoxicated victim, repeated rapes and further sexual indignities; lack of physical violence did not mitigate given the victim's incapacity and the defendant's exploitation of that state, and Hong Kong authorities permit higher starting points in such circumstances.
30 May 1997

R. v. CHAN CHI WA

Citation

R. v. CHAN CHI WA
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC559/1996

The lies direction given was a proper exercise of judicial discretion and was not unfair or materially prejudicial; the summing‑up as a whole was balanced and did not render the trial unsafe; the judge was entitled to treat the applicant's previous rape conviction as an aggravating factor when fixing sentence; the concurrent sentences of 10 years were not manifestly excessive and leave to appeal against conviction and sentence was refused.
22 Nov 1994

LAU YAT PANG and Another v. R.

Citation

LAU YAT PANG and Another v. R.
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC260/1994

Convictions were upheld because the judge properly identified discrepancies and cautioned the jury about accomplice evidence and the jury were entitled to accept the Crown evidence; however the custodial sentences were inappropriate for these juvenile offenders where the victim was of about the same age and, given the circumstances, detention in a training centre was the proper disposition, so the Court quashed the imprisonment sentences and ordered training centre detention.
2 Feb 1990

THE QUEEN v. BARRY SUMMERS

Citation

THE QUEEN v. BARRY SUMMERS
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC457/1989

The Court held the trial judge's starting point of 3.5 years was a proper general starting point for buggery involving a 16-year-old, the discount for plea was properly allowed, and the applicant's previous convictions and the need to protect minors justified the imposed concurrent sentences; leave to appeal was refused.
8 Dec 1988

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NG SHING CHUN

Citation

ATTORNEY GENERAL v. NG SHING CHUN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CAAR5/1988

The Court refused the appeal against convictions because the trial judge fairly and adequately directed the jury on alibi and identification matters and the convictions were supported by the evidence; the Attorney General's review was allowed because the original sentencing contained errors and did not adequately reflect the gravity of two distinct gang rapes, so the Court set aside the sentences and imposed revised terms (Count1: 5 years; Count2: 12 years; Count3: 12 years) to run concurrently, noting the trial judge's mistaken reference to an incorrect maximum for the kidnapping count and a…
8 Dec 1988

THE QUEEN v. NG SHING CHUN

Citation

THE QUEEN v. NG SHING CHUN
Court

Court of Appeal
Case number

CACC130/1988

The Court refused leave to appeal the convictions because the trial judge's summing up on alibi and identification was complete and fair and left the matters properly to the jury; however on review under s.81A the Court found the sentencing judge had misapplied the proper statutory maximum for the common law kidnapping count and that the original concurrent rape sentences did not adequately reflect the gravity of two distinct gang rapes, and therefore substituted new sentences (Count 1 reduced to 5 years; Counts 2 and 3 increased to 12 years each) to run concurrently.