DISTRICT COURT OF THE HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION
Parties: HKSAR v. CHAN SEK MING JOHNNY
Citation: [2006] 1589 HKCU 1
JUDGMENTBY: HH Judge Lok
DECIDED-DATE: 20 September 2006
…the evidence of Madam Wong, the previous good character of the Defendant and the response made by him when he was arrested all support the fact that the Defendant had no real intention to commit the gang rape or to incite others to do so. I therefore so find. As the alternative Charges 2 and 4 require the proof of a specific intent to commit an offence whilst the Defendant gained access to the computer, the Defendant cannot possibly be convicted for the offence under these charges…
…person of a decent mind, whether in the past, at present or in the future, whether in Hong Kong or elsewhere in the world, would tolerate the commission of a crime such as rape, let alone a horrible gang rape in the manner suggested by the Defendant in the Messages. In my judgment, ordinary right thinking members of the public who read the Messages would not merely feel shocked or disgusted but would feel outraged by their contents…
…internet would provide a good forum to group together people with common interest, and there might be a possibility that the invitation would group together such kind of people, with or without the Defendant himself, to plan for the gang rape, and what Defendant says to be a fanciful creation might materialize into a horrible crime…
…the Defendant’s Messages were no private communications. The Message Board was a public forum and any persons could gain access to its contents. There might be a lot of viewers who just participated in the discussion for the first time or who might not be familiar with the so-called ‘culture’ of the Website. In such case,the court should base on the standard of ordinary right thinking members of the public, as suggested by Roch LJ in R v Ching Choi, ibid. , in deciding whether the Defendant’s act was one which outrages public decency….
…It is also not the court’s role to create new offences, as it is a matter for the legislature. On the other hand, committing an act outraging public decency is a long-established offence in common law. Although the values of society may change from time to time, the object of the offence in preventing the corruption of mind and the destruction or erosion of values of decency is still valid in modern world. Further, like other media such as newspapers and books, internet is a public forum and so there is no reason why the offence is not applicable to messages published on the internet…
…Based on the aforesaid analysis, it is certainly not unreasonable or inconvenient to apply the established legal principles to the facts of the present case. In doing so,I find that the Defendant’s conduct was one which outrages public decency. I am therefore satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt that the Prosecution has proved all the elements of the offence under Charges 1 and 3, and I convict the Defendant accordingly…
BBS Invitation of group rape fund guilty in HK
