top of page

Court Visit Report - HKSAR v. MA WANG FAI VINCENT (馬宏輝)

Court Visit Report

18th May 2022


In HKSAR v. Ma Wang Fai Vincent (Case No.: DCCC 920/2021), the Defendant, a male staff at a childcare shelter, was charged with two counts of indecent assault. The victim, an Indian girl who was 9 years old at the time and identified anonymously as “X”, provided in her testimony that the Defendant had kissed her on the lips and touched her private parts, all without her consent. The Defendant denied the charges.

In a rather dramatic turn of events, Lin J has advised the charges to be dropped on day 3 of the trial. Lin J reasoned as such: while X was able to provide a clear picture of what transpired during the examination-in-chief, she was extremely emotional during the cross-examination on day 2. Lin J believed that the defence counsel made the reasonable decision to end the questioning there; but without the opportunity for the defence to make their case, X’s testimony was insufficient to secure a conviction, considering that the standard of proof in criminal cases is one of “beyond reasonable doubt”. Lin J thus concluded that the sole option here is to drop the charges, though it was emphasized that this does not mean that X is untrustworthy or that the indecent assault did not happen. Lin J also made several comments to X throughout the trial commending her bravery.

The Adversarial Nature of a Courtroom

This case again highlights that courtrooms are very much not victim-friendly. The accusatorial nature of a cross-examination and the general aggressive mood of a courtroom forces victim-survivors to relive traumatic memories, and it is not so difficult to imagine why X in this case, now only still 12 years of age, became so distressed.

Furthermore, if the victim-survivor giving evidence appears too calm, such demeanor might be challenged by the defence as too “rehearsed” or “fabricated”; if the victim appears too emotional, then the judge, such as the one in this case, actually finds it impossible to continue the court proceedings, resulting in a decision that allows the perpetrator to walk free. While the judge here has repeatedly assured X (and likely her father, too, when other journalists and members of the public were asked to leave the courtroom) that “she has been very brave”, it appears that there is a serious defect in the official avenue for justice that makes it almost impossible for sexual abuse victim-survivors to realistically partake in.

The Defence’s Case

During the trial, Lin J has repeatedly cut short the defence’s cross-examination of a representative from the childcare shelter, who served as the prosecution’s witness. However, the questioning nevertheless revealed that staff recorded instances of X and other girls at the shelter touching each other inappropriately, and would watch romance dramas on a laptop provided to her (though the witness does not believe these dramas contain any explicitly sexual content). The Defence also presented to X her own paintings with the words “I love Vincent uncle [the Defendant]” written on it, and accused her of having romantic feelings for the Defendant. This was especially concerning because one wonders how appropriate it is to paint a then 9-year-old child as a promiscuous figure, and whether it convincingly absolves the Defendant’s actions. It was also exactly this line of questioning, rife with gender-coded myths, that renders X so distressed to the point where it is no longer possible for her to continue.

The Conundrum of Criminalizing of Sexual Abuse

Sexual abuse is, by nature, often a private act and difficult to be corroborated by a third party, which makes it hard to reconcile with established rules in criminal law. In a case like this, when the price to pay in order to preserve a rigorous administration of justice is to let the perpetrator go free without any consequences whatsoever, advocates should ponder how the judicial system can make things easier for victim-survivors, but also look beyond to alternative avenues of justice.

Further Reading:

387 次查看0 則留言




新北市一位低視力人士A,依據《身心障礙者權益保障法》第1、71條,向新北市輔具資源中心申請輔具輔助。輔具資源中心對A的狀況和需求進行了評估,認為他適用放大鏡、手持放大鏡和某一款便攜的擴視機。於是A向輔具請款部門申請了經費補貼,用於購買手持放大鏡和某一款便攜擴視機。 然後,A發現IPAD Pro的功能更好,既完全符合該款便攜擴視機的功能,還有更多功能可以滿足他的需要。輔具請款部門發現,他用專門的輔具


性别平等的法律与实践工作坊 案例汇编 香港大学法律学院 2018年3月17-20日 香港 目录 性别歧视案例分享 2 案例1 2 性别就业歧视第一案:曹菊诉巨人教育及海淀人社局 2 案例2 4 性别就业歧视胜诉第一案:黄蓉诉杭州东方烹饪学校 4 案例3 5 国企性别就业歧视第一案:马户诉北京邮政及劳务派遣公司 5 案例4 6 首例判决道歉的性别就业歧视案:高晓诉广州惠食佳及广州人社局 6


bottom of page