Magistrate Byron Tsang acquitted the defendant, a 15-year-old boy at the time of the incident, of raping a then 15-year-old girl.

The Prosecution’s case (which is also common ground) is that the Defendant (“𝗗”) came to know the complainant (“𝗫”) when he visited her place of work (a restaurant) with, amongst others, a common friend between them. X then took an interest in D and asked for his contact information. D later accompanied X to get a tongue piercing, and the two rode bikes with D’s friends at night a few times. During one of the said bike rides and through WhatsApp, X confessed her romantic feelings towards D and asked if D could become her boyfriend. D, nonetheless, repeatedly rejected X as he was still “𝘪𝘯 𝘭𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘸𝘪𝘵𝘩 𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘦𝘹(-𝘨𝘪𝘳𝘭𝘧𝘳𝘪𝘦𝘯𝘥)”. Nevertheless, X persisted and even offered to pay D HK$ 200,000 and threatened to commit suicide when she once visited D’s home on an uninvited basis during midnight hours seeking to talk to him.

The Prosecution alleged that one night (which was approximately a week after X came to know D), D and a few friends went to X’s place of work and allegedly forced her to go home with them to play mahjong. X alleged that D took her personal belongings and she had no option but to comply. X alleged that D raped her in D’s own bedroom on the following morning, with one of D’s friends listening to the whole incident in the living room.

Having heard the evidence and viewed the WhatsApp records between the two, the Court found X’s evidence incredible and acquitted D of rape. Magistrate Byron Tsang noted that during the alleged rape, even as described by X, there were plenty of opportunities where D had no control over X’s body. However, X made no effort to resist D, nor did she ever attempt to escape. X’s behaviour after the incident was even more confusing – she left D’s bedroom after allegedly being raped, but then shortly went back in, slept together with D on the same bed until the afternoon, with D spooning her from behind. X then said that after she left D’s home, X (on her own volition and verified by CCTV footage) went back to D’s home. In the WhatsApp conversation between X and D immediately after the incident, her only complaints against D were that D “𝘬𝘦𝘱𝘵 [𝘟] 𝘸𝘢𝘪𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨” and X lost her AirPods. The Court noted that X had the tendency to use “𝘐 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭” as an answer when questions detrimental to her case were put to her, but was well able to remember details in her favour.

The Court therefore could not draw the only irresistible inference that X and D had sexual intercourse, nor that X did not consent to that.

Simon So appeared with Jack Hui for the Defendant in the juvenile court in the 9-day trial.