Sex Crimes Amendment Bill｜Charlatans’ “sexual transit” scams overseas are also regulated. John Lee: Acts of inducing it to happen in Hong Kong are already within jurisdiction

The government today (the 7th) launched a one-month public consultation on proposed amendments to Hong Kong’s sexual offences legislation. Members of the Legislative Council’s Security Affairs Committee also discussed the related legislation this afternoon. Legislator Chan Hok-fung is concerned that from time to time people commit sexual abuse in the name of religion; under the law, how is consent of a victim to be defined, and if the relevant act happens overseas, does Hong Kong have jurisdiction.

Secretary for Security Chris Tang said the newly created “sexual conduct under a misunderstanding” in this round of amendments is precisely aimed at “sexual conduct in transit.” As long as it induces or genuinely violates a person “as if it were done in Hong Kong,” Hong Kong will have jurisdiction.

Chris Tang gave examples:

No matter whether the offender deceives the victim in Hong Kong to be “in transit for sexual conduct” overseas, or whether during travel they induce the victim to come to Hong Kong for “sexual conduct in transit,” Hong Kong can exercise jurisdiction.

Chris Tang said in the meeting that existing sexual crime offences are inadequate and out of step with the times. This includes some offences that specify gender, so the government proposes amendments. The government proposes to establish a statutory definition for “consent,” and specify situations where the victim is “without consent,” as well as to expand the definition of rape. It will also divide sexual assault crimes into categories involving touching and those not involving touching, and make it an offence to force children to watch sexual images, etc. The goal is to make the law clearer and more precise, strengthen protection for residents and children, and reflect the principle of sexual autonomy.

The age of sexual consent set at 16 years, but consensual relationships among minors may not necessarily be prosecuted

With the “age of sexual consent” set at 16, even if those under the age “consent” to intercourse, the person who has intercourse with them will also be prosecuted. Several lawmakers are concerned about the application scope across different scenarios. Legislator Wong Kam-yan is concerned that if minors date and engage in sexual activity, whether they will be prosecuted; Legislator Lin Lin said that adolescents aged 16 to 17 are still students, and “sexual consent” is a grey area, worrying that they may be influenced by the authority of coaches or teachers and mistakenly think they are in love with the other person, resulting in sexual exploitation. Legislator Chan Man-yi is concerned that forced reporting of child abuse is defined as under 18, so why is the age of “sexual consent” not aligned with this definition.

Chris Tang responded that intercourse among minors depends on the circumstances. If the two parties do not know each other, prosecution is required; but if it is a “mutual affection” situation, there is generally some flexibility. For instance, if both parties’ parents consent, currently police are also likely to issue a police caution; “so one must make judgment based on individual circumstances.” As for the case involving teachers or other superiors, Chris Tang said that if authority is involved, and the victim is intimidated into submission by using a relationship of trust, “even if the victim is 20 years old, it is still an offence.”

Pouring water on a girl during a campus orientation, making her wet, is also sexual assault involving touching

Another legislator, Lin Lin, raised concern that at university orientation camps, it is common to pour “odd-colored” liquid on girls, or to deliberately splash water on them with sexual intent to make women wet. Whether such conduct would also constitute a sexual crime under the new provisions.

Chris Tang said the amendments are, within “sexual assaults involving touching,” to specify that pouring liquid on another person with sexual intent—including semen, urine, and saliva—are also sexual offences. Legislator Yip O-tung asked further: if two people quarrel and spit at each other, is it also within the scope of the law? Chris Tang emphasized that the key is “sexual intent,” and that it becomes an offence only when it causes the victim to realize that the other person will use, or threaten to use, immediate and unlawful violence against the person, or makes the victim feel insulted, frightened, or harassed. If it has nothing to do with sex, it is not covered. For example, “if a lady tells you, ‘your chest is so beautiful,’ and then spits on you, then that would be an offence.”

Legislator Kwan Ho-ming followed up by asking about the definition of “insulted, frightened, or harassed” being subjective, but the maximum sentence for the offence can be up to 10 years. Would the authorities further define it more clearly? Chris Tang said the provisions would be “written more clearly,” but they require three elements: doing it “intentionally or recklessly with disregard of consequences,” using or threatening to use “immediate and unlawful violence against the person,” and causing the victim to feel insulted, etc.—only then would it be an offence.