The defendant, Ms So Hing, was the proprietor of a “vice establishment” (i.e. brothel) in Hong Kong. She received a 20-year-old Chinese girl, P.W., from mainland China to work as a prostitute. P.W. was told that she had to service 120 customers to repay her debt and thereafter she would receive HKD100 for each customer. P.W. stated that since she had no friends or relatives in Hong Kong and no money, she felt she had no alternative but to agree to the repayment schedule that had been made for her after she arrived (ostensibly she was not aware of this arrangement before she arrived, having just agreed to undertake sex work in exchange for money).
In return for having sex with clients, P.W. was paid in shirt buttons. She was given one button for each customer she serviced. The only money she ever received was the occasional tip that customers would give her. However, she did see customers giving money to the defendant.
The facts show receipt of an individual through deception and abuse of power/position of vulnerability for the purpose of sexual exploitation/exploitation for the purposes of prostitution.
中国1st Instance:
The District Court (Hong Kong), guilty.
2nd Instance:
The Court of Appeal of the High Court (Hong Kong), 7 January 1997, appeal against conviction and sentence dismissed.
1st Instance:
Ms So Hing was convicted of the above three charges, although the details of two further charges are unknown. She was sentenced to two years imprisonment.
A co-defendant of Ms So Hing (who made arrangements for P.W. to travel from China to Hong Kong) was also charged and convicted of assisting in keeping a vice establishment, controlling a prostitute and two immigration offences.
Further details pertaining to the 1st instance trial are unavailable.
2nd Instance:
Ms So Hing brought an appeal against her conviction and sentence in the Court of Appeal of the High Court (Hong Kong). The appeal was, however, dismissed on all grounds.
Mayo JA (for the Court) examined whether the third charge (living off the earnings of prostitution) subsumed all of the ingredients of the second charge. “What has to be appreciated is that living off the earnings of a prostitute may involve entirely different considerations to controlling a prostitute… as has been indicated it is clear that there was sufficient evidence to support convictions on both counts and necessarily this evidence would not have been identical on both courts. This being the case the application for leave to appeal against conviction cannot succeed and it is accordingly dismissed”.
In regards to the apparent excessiveness of the sentence, the Court found that “while we accept the sentence of two years’ imprisonment was the higher end of the range of appropriate sentences for this offence we are not persuaded that the sentence was either manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. This application is also dismissed.”
The Court of Appeal of the High Court (Hong Kong)
2nd Instance: [1997] HKCA 167
