Hon Cheung JA (giving the Reasons for Judgment of the Court):
上訴法庭法官張澤祐頒發上訴法庭判案理由書：

Appeal against Sentence
刑期上訴

The Applicant faced 5 charges, three of which (Charges 1, 2 and 4) were of unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under 16, contrary to section 124(1) of the Crimes Ordinance, Cap. 200, Laws of Hong Kong (“the Ordinance”); and the remaining two (Charges 3 and 5) were of buggery with a girl under 21, contrary to section 118D of the Ordinance.
申請人被控五項控罪，其中三項是與年齡在 16 歲以下的女童非法性交，違反香港法例第 200 章《刑事罪行條例》(《條例》)第 124(1) 條（即控罪一、二及四）；另外兩項控罪是與 21 歲以下的女童作出肛交，違反《條例》第 118D 條（即控罪三及五）。

The Applicant was convicted on all the charges after trial before Deputy High Court Judge Poon and jury and was sentenced to 4 years’ imprisonment.  Deputy Judge Poon sentenced him to 18 months’ imprisonment for each of Charges 1, 2 and 4 (the unlawful sexual intercourse charges) and 3 years’ imprisonment for each of Charges 3 and 5 (the unlawful buggery charges).  The sentences for Charges 3 and 5 were to run concurrently whereas 4 months of the sentence for each of Charges 1, 2 and 4 were to run consecutively to the other sentences, making a total of 4 years’ imprisonment.  The Applicant now applies for leave to appeal against sentence out of time.
案件經高等法院原訟法庭暫委法官潘敏琦及陪審團審理後，申請人被裁定罪名成立及判處入獄四年。潘敏琦法官就控罪一、二及四（即非法性交罪）各判申請人入獄 18 個月，而控罪三及五（即非法肛交罪），則各判入獄三年。控罪三及五需同期執行，而控罪一、二及四的每項刑期中的四個月與其他控罪分期執行，總刑期為四年監禁。申請人就刑期提出逾期上訴許可申請。

The Facts
案情

At the material times, the victim involved in the 5 charges was a girl aged 15 and the Applicant was aged 19.  On 18 December 2003, they had their first sexual intercourse (Charge 1).  Thereafter, between 1 March and 30 April 2004, they had sexual intercourse once and anal intercourse once (Charges 2 and 3).  Later, on 26 July 2004, they had sexual intercourse once and anal intercourse once (Charges 4 and 5).  They had their first sexual intercourse 4 days after their acquaintance.
涉及五項控罪的受害人在事發時是一名 15 歲的女童。申請人當時 19 歲。兩人於 2003 年 12 月 18 日首次發生性行為（即控罪一）。之後，在 2004 年 3 月 1 日至 4 月 30 日期間分別進行了一次性交及一次肛交（即控罪二及控罪三），其後在 2004 年 7 月 26 日進行了一次性交及一次肛交（即控罪四及控罪五）。兩人於相識四天後發生了第一次性行為。

The Ordinance
《條例》

Section 118D of the Ordinance states that: “A man who commits buggery with a girl under the age of 21 shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.”
《條例》第 118D 條說：「任何男子與年齡在 21 歲以下的女童作出肛交，即屬犯罪，一經循公訴程序定罪，可處終身監禁」。

Section 124(1) of the Ordinance states that: “… a man who has unlawful sexual intercourse with a girl under the age of 16 shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for 5 years”.
《條例》第 124(1) 條說：「任何男子與一名年齡在 16 歲以下的女童非法性交，即屬犯罪，一經循公訴程序定罪，可處監禁五年」。

The Applicant’s Arguments
申請人的論點

Mr. David Ma, Counsel for the Applicant on assignment by the Free Legal Service Scheme of the Hong Kong Bar Association, submits that according to Leung v. Secretary for Justice [2006] 4 HKLRD 211, anal intercourse between homosexual men should be regarded as equivalent to vaginal intercourse between heterosexuals.  On this basis, anal intercourse between a man and a woman was also a form of sexual intercourse between them, and therefore, the maximum penalty of life imprisonment prescribed by section 118D for the offence of buggery is grossly disproportional to the one of 5 years’ imprisonment prescribed by section 124(1) for the offence of unlawful sexual intercourse.
申請人的代表律師是香港大律師公會，法律義助服務計劃的馬維騉大律師。馬大律師指根據 Leung v. Secretary for Justice (梁訴律政司司長) [2006] 4 HKLRD 211 一案，男同性戀者的肛交性行為應被視作等同於異性戀者的陰道性交行為。基於這論點，男女的肛交行為亦是男女性交的一種，故此第 118D 條判處進行肛交者最高刑罰為終身監禁及 124(1) 條判處非法進行性行者最高刑罰為五年監禁是極之不合比例的。

However, Mr. Ma does not intend to challenge the constitutionality of the penalty under section 118D.  He only asks that the sentence imposed for the offence of buggery be equivalent to that imposed for unlawful sexual intercourse.  He submits that Deputy Judge Poon erred in saying that the section 118D offence was far more serious than the section 124(1) offence.
但馬大律師無意質疑第 118D 條內的罰則是否違憲，他只是希望法庭判處肛交的刑罰需等同於非法性交。他說潘法官指第 118D 條的嚴重性遠超過第 124(1) 條是錯誤的。

Leung v. Secretary for Justice
梁訴律政司司長

In Leung v. Secretary for Justice, the issue before the Court of Appeal (Hon Ma CJHC, Woo VP and Tang JA (as he then was)) was whether section 118C of the Ordinance was contrary to the Basic Law and the provisions on equality in the Hong Kong Bill of Rights.
在梁訴律政司司長 一案，上訴法庭（高等法院馬道立首席法官，胡國興副庭長和鄧國禎上訴法庭法官（當時官階））所處理的議題是有關《條例》第 118C 條是否與《基本法》及《香港人權法》內的平等條例有所抵觸。

Section 118C provides that:
118C 條說：

A man who ―
「任何男子 ─

與年紀在 21 歲以下的男子作出肛交；或	(a) 	commits buggery with a man under the age of 21; or
(a)

年齡在 21 歲以下，而與另一名男子作出肛交，	(b) 	being under the age of 21 commits buggery with another man,
(b)

shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction on indictment to imprisonment for life.
即屬犯罪，一經循公訴程序定罪，可處終身監禁。」

The Court of Appeal held that section 118C was discriminatory against homosexual men.  The Court pointed out that for heterosexuals, the form of sexual intercourse open to them was “vaginal intercourse”, but the only form of sexual intercourse available to homosexual men was anal intercourse.  At law, anal intercourse was a form of sexual intercourse, and therefore section 118C, which rendered anal intercourse between homosexual men an offence, was discriminatory against those people.
上訴法庭裁定第 118C 條是歧視男同性戀者。上訴法庭指雙性戀者的性交方法是「陰道性交」，但男同性戀者就只有肛交這種性交方法。在法律上，肛交亦是性交的一種，所以第 118C  條針對男同性戀者的肛交性行為是一條歧視男同性戀者的條例。

Discussion
本庭的意見

Although the aforesaid case dealt with the issue of anal intercourse between homosexual men, the Court of Appeal did point out that anal intercourse at law defined as a form of sexual intercourse, and this definition can also apply to anal intercourse between a man and a woman.  The cases cited in Leung v. Secretary for Justice show that the law supports rather than rejects such an interpretation: see paragraph 47 of the judgment therein.
雖然上述案件涉及的是男同性戀者肛交的議題，但根據上訴法庭的裁決，在法律定義上肛交亦是性交行為的一種，這定義亦適用於男女肛交的性行為。從梁訴律政司司長 一案所援引的案例可見，法律不單沒有否定這樣的闡釋，反而是支持有關的闡釋，見：梁訴律政司司長 第 47 段。

The common law system is a dynamic legal system, characterized by its ability to adapt to changing circumstances and its flexibility in interpreting established legal principles so that they can apply to the actual situation in question.  Even if the maximum penalty prescribed by the Ordinance for a certain form of sexual intercourse is higher than that for another form of sexual intercourse, as the current legal definition of sexual intercourse encompasses various forms of intercourse, the court should not increase the sentence merely because the offence in question is buggery.  The court should determine an appropriate sentence in light of the facts of the particular case and, in the process, take into account factors such as: whether there is a wide age gap between the defendant and the victim; whether the defendant is in a position to control the victim’s mind or direct the victim in her acts, e.g. being her employer, teacher or relative; whether the defendant has exerted an intangible influence on the victim, thereby obtaining her consent to have anal intercourse with him; and whether the defendant inflicted violence on the victim or made her feel unwell or hurt during the anal intercourse.
普通法是一個具生命力的法律體制，特點是順應時勢演變，它靈話地闡釋固有的法律，讓它適用於實際的環境。就算《條例》將某種性交行為的最高刑罰定得高於另一種性交行為，但由於現時法律對於性交的闡釋是包括不同形式的性行為，所以法庭在量刑時也不應該單單因被告人所干犯的罪行是肛交而將刑期調高的。法庭是應該視乎案情而作出適當的量刑，所要考慮的因素包括被告人與受害人的年齡是否相差很遠；被告是否屬於可控制受害人思想或可指揮受害人做事的人士如僱主、師長或親屬等；被告人有否利用無形的影響力令受害人就範而同意與其進行肛交；在進行肛交性行為時有否使用暴力或令受害人不適或受創。

We consider the sentence of 18 months’ imprisonment imposed by Deputy Judge Poon on the Applicant for the offence of unlawful sexual intercourse to be appropriate.  Regarding the sentence for the offence of buggery, we are of the view that none of the factors mentioned in paragraph 13 (sic) above existed in the present case.  The present case does not involve the victim being seduced by an older man into having sexual intercourse.  The Applicant and the victim were of a similar age, and the victim had a lot of boyfriends before her acquaintance with the Applicant.  In these circumstances, the sentence for the offence of buggery can in our view be the same as that for unlawful sexual intercourse, i.e. 18 months’ imprisonment.  It has to be pointed out that the judgment of Leung v. Secretary for Justice was handed down after Deputy Judge Poon imposed the sentence in question.
本庭認為潘法官就非法性交罪名判處申請人入獄 18 個月的刑期是適當的。至於肛交罪的刑期，本庭認為本案沒有如上文第 13 段的情況。本案不涉及受害人被年長男子引誘而進行性行為的情況。申請人與女童的年紀相約。女童在認識申請人之前已結交過很多男朋友。本庭認為在這情況下法庭是可以就肛交的控罪判處與非法性交一樣的刑期——18 個月監禁。本庭需要指出梁訴律政司司長 的判決是在潘法官作出量刑之後才頒發的。

Pursuant to sections 124(1) and 118D of the Ordinance, even where a girl under 16 consents to have sexual intercourse or a girl under 21 consents to have buggery, the person who has sexual intercourse with her still commits the relevant offence.  The objective of section 124(1) is to protect underage girls as they are only physically mature but not mentally so.  The law has to protect these girls who do not know how to protect themselves.  As for section 118D, leaving aside the dispute arising from the difference between the age of 21 as prescribed by the section and the age of 18 being the statutory age of majority, those who enjoy protection under the Ordinance certainly include young girls who do not know how to protect themselves.
根據《條例》第 124(1) 及118D 條，就算一名年齡不足 16 歲的女童同意性交或者一名未滿 21 歲的女性同意進行肛交，但那與她進行性行為的人士仍是觸犯了有關罪行。第 124(1) 條的目的是保護未成年的女性，因為她們雖然身體成熟，但心智卻未成熟，法例須保護這些不懂得保護自己的女童。至於第 118D 條，姑不論其所制定21 歲的規限和現時法定成年歲數為 18 歲所引起的爭議，但受到這條例所保護的人士肯定是包括一些不懂得保護自己的年幼女童。

The victim in the present case was only 15 at the material times.  Although she did not mind having sexual intercourse with the Applicant, she certainly had to be protected by the law.  The two of them had also done other acts, for example, the Applicant had dripped some melted wax onto the girl’s body and inserted a hard object into her anus.  Although there is no evidence to show that these acts were forced upon the girl or had injured her, we must adhere to the principle that underage girls should be protected.  In light of this, and taking into account the Applicant’s clear record, we hold that the total sentence should be 2½ years’ imprisonment.
本案受害人在案發時只有 15 歲，儘管她不介意與申請人進行性行為，她肯定是需要受到法律的保護。雙方亦有進行過其他的活動，如：申請人將燒熔了的蠟滴在女童的身體上及用硬物插入女童的肛門裏，雖然無任何証據顯示有關的行為是強加於女童身上或令女童受傷，本庭本着未成年女童應該受到保護的原則及考慮到申請人之前沒有犯罪記錄，裁定總刑期應為兩年半監禁。

We grant leave to the Applicant to appeal against sentence out of time and, treating the hearing of the application as the appeal, we allow the appeal and vary the total sentence to 2½ years’ imprisonment with the individual sentences varied as follows: the sentence for each charge shall be 18 months’ imprisonment.  The sentences for Charges 1, 2 and 4 are to run concurrently.  The sentences for Charges 3 and 5 are also to run concurrently, but 12 months thereof are to be served consecutively to the 18 months for Charges 1, 2 and 4, making a total term of 2½ years.
本庭批准申請人就刑期提出的逾期上訴許可申請，視申請為正式上訴。本庭判上訴得直及將總刑期更改為兩年半監禁，個別刑期更改如下：每項控罪刑期為 18 個月監禁，第一、二及四項控罪的刑期同期執行，第三及五項控罪的刑期亦同期執行，但其中 12 個月要與第一、二及四項控罪中的 18 個月分期執行，合共兩年半監禁。

We consider it necessary for the Secretary for Justice to conduct a review on the current discrepancy between section 118D and section 124(1) as soon as possible.
本庭認為律政司司長有需要盡快檢討第 118D 與第 124(1) 條現存在的分歧。

：由律政司何詠光高級政府律師代表。	Mr. Paul Ho, Senior Government Counsel, for the Respondent
答辯人

：由香港大律師公會法律義助服務計劃委派大律師馬維騉代表。	Mr. David Ma, assigned by the Free Legal Service Scheme of the Hong Kong Bar Association, for the Applicant
申請人