聯署促請港府於「完善香港的性罪行法例」中修補「持續性侵犯兒童」法律漏洞
The Issue
Scroll down for English Version.
政府建議完善香港的性罪行法例，當局表示是次修例一方面希望加強對性罪行受害人的保護，另一方面令性罪行條例與時並進。政府表示：「十分重視社會大眾，特別是兒童及精神缺損人士的福祉，致力保護他們免受性剝削和侵犯是政府訂立性罪行法例的初衷」。「完善香港的性罪行法例」諮詢文件在範疇(二)「涉及兒童的性罪行」中，新訂了多項罪行，方向值得肯定。然而，文件中新建議的罪行均針對單一侵害行為，並未設立「持續性侵犯」—— 針對重複性侵害的獨立罪行。
現行法例就兒童性侵犯的檢控方式以每一次獨立的侵犯事件起訴，未能真實地反映受持續性侵犯兒童的傷害。即使最終能就個別事件成功入罪，法庭也只能按有限的控罪判刑，與受害人經歷過數百次侵犯的真實情況相差甚遠，判刑難以真實反映有關持續性侵行為的惡劣程度，以及受害人所承受創傷的嚴重性。我們嚴肅地促請政府把握是次法律改革的機會，加入「持續性侵犯兒童」獨立罪行，填補諮詢文件及法改會建議中的一項重要檢控漏洞，減少受害人因逐次提控而承受的不合理舉證負擔，讓法例能真正反映受害人所承受創傷的嚴重程度，促進社會對兒童更進一步的保護。
我們必須指出，這項法律空白直接牴觸了法改會為是次改革訂立的指導原則，以及政府自身訂明的政策目的。其一，法律必須清晰明確：現行逐次舉證要求對於持續性侵案件完全不切實際，法律根本沒有回應此類案件的特殊現實；其二，尊重性自主權：長期持續侵犯的嚴重程度無法在判刑中體現，令受害人的性自主權被制度性地貶抑；其三，保護原則：最嚴重的侵犯反而最難被追究，是制度性的保護失敗；其四，符合人權法：兒童依據國際人權標準享有獲得特別保護的權利，現行制度卻令兒童受害者實際上比成人更難獲得公義。政府早於2000年代初已討論訂立此罪行，惟礙於當時大律師公會和律師公會對於法律細節執行上的擔憂，暫時擱置提交修訂建議。事隔逾二十年，澳洲多個州份已相繼立法回應此漏洞，香港卻仍在原地踏步。我們必須指出，香港大律師公會及香港律師學會的回應已是二十多年前的事，而過去這二十年間，許多案例已證明透過「樣本式控罪」進行檢控的做法並未奏效。我們必須採取積極行動彌補這個法律漏洞。
（一）兒童性侵的現實：持續、隱蔽、延遲披露
根據風雨蘭提供的服務使用者數據，在2019至2023年間，六成兒童性侵事件屬持續發生，最終只有三成受害人報警求助，延遲報警的時間中位數更長達九年半（3,450天）。「持續性侵犯兒童」仍是一個遭到嚴重忽視的社會問題。侵犯者往往與受害兒童關係密切，利用成年人的信任和權威迫使兒童就範並保持沉默，以致延遲揭發成為常態。相比之下，其他非兒童性暴力案件的報警求助比率為四成半，延遲報警時間中位數僅為35天，足見兒童性侵受害者所面對的困境遠比其他性侵案件嚴峻。
（二）現行舉證標準與創傷現實的錯配
目前的法律框架要求公訴書內每一項罪名只能涵蓋一個不當行為，受害人需要就每次獨立的侵犯事件提供清晰的細節。然而，遭受童年性侵的當事人受當年心智和認知發展能力所限，難以準確分辨每宗事件的具體時地與過程；加上大部分案件事隔多年才披露，受害人往往難以在多年後準確憶述每次被性侵時的具體情況，根本無法達到成功檢控的門檻。
研究顯示，受害人在經歷創傷後，記憶可能出現碎片化、跳躍或難以連貫敘述的情況，這與大眾期望的線性、井井有條的證供大相逕庭。當面對持續反覆發生的性侵時，倖存者往往只能記得事件的「核心內容」和慣性模式，而難以準確回應單一事件的具體細節，例如確切的日期、地點或次數。在警署或法庭上，這種遺忘或不確定，常被理解或攻擊為證詞失實的象徵，從而動搖倖存者作為證人的可信程度。對於未能詳盡舉出數宗獨立情節的受害人而言，更可能止步於警署報案階段，連把侵犯者帶上法庭接受審訊的機會也沒有。
- 倖存者Elaine：「法庭要求一個經歷極度恐懼和創傷的人，必須像一部CCTV一樣，毫無差池地記錄所有微少細節（如左右手、精確分鐘、前後順序），十分荒謬。任何試圖解釋心理掙扎的言論，往往會被辯方以『與案情無關』為由打斷。對我而言，司法程序對我帶來的傷害甚至比事件本身令我更受傷。至於這個過程對受害人生活造成的毀滅性打擊，在幾乎沒有任何法律或福利程序予以承載。事發多年後，我仍會發夢夢見當時上庭的情況，認為自己就是辯方律師宣稱人格有問題的證人。
更嚴峻的是，重複性愈高的長期性侵害——例如性侵已成為隨時可能重複發生的生活日常——受害人能辨識每次性侵獨特情節的能力愈低，加害者則愈難被定罪。法庭早在2002年的立法會提出修訂相關罪行文件時已指出：若某人常以同一方式犯罪而決定不能予以檢控，但只犯一次或兩次卻可被檢控，這會顯得有點荒謬。這說明早於二十多年前，法庭已承認法律上最嚴重的侵犯，卻在現行不切實際及不合理的舉證制度下最難獲得追究。
- 倖存者BoBo：「當坐入錄影會面房時，臨床心理學家只引導我說出四件事件：第一次事件、最後一次事件、最深刻的一次及最不同的一次，並加上一句有沒有其他補充。在現行的制度下，法庭避免公訴書過長，並不會記錄所有發生過的事件。對於我而言，在報警之前我需要清晰記得所有日期及時間，讓我經歷了嚴重的情緒波動。因為我需要仔細回憶，到底那個時段發生了那件事。在家裏經歷長時間性侵，對於我而言等於我的日常。然而，在報警時卻需要列出每宗性罪行的不同之處，才能作出提告。我需要慶幸自己發生了不同的狀況嗎？」
（三）檢控與判刑的雙重局限
現時檢控方式以每一次獨立的侵犯事件起訴。檢控困難在於：（例子）即使被告與兒童有很多不恰當的身體接觸，儘管受害人曾與身邊信任的成年人提出過，他們亦可以做證，但由於這些案情屬「不被起訴行為」，儘管已經錄下口供，在現行法律框架下並沒有呈堂機會。原本這些證據本應更能反映到案件的持續性質、長期發生的模式。
同時，在法庭審訊過程中，受害人只可以就每項控罪獨立提供證供。有受害人表示，每當在庭上提及完整的案情 —— 例如：「同一類型侵犯事件總共發生了多少次」—— 便立即被辯方律師以「維護被告權利」為由制止作供，令受害人無法在庭上完整敘述事件的持續性，法庭亦無法全面衡量被告侵犯受害人的整體嚴重程度。
即使最終能就個別事件成功入罪，法庭也只能按有限的控罪判刑，與受害人經歷過數百次侵犯的真實情況相差甚遠，判刑難以真實反映有關持續性侵行為的惡劣程度，以及受害人所承受創傷的嚴重性。事實上，現行檢控條件苛刻得近乎不仁——法律僵化地要求提供每次獨立細節，完全無視兒童心智發育未成熟時，面對長期創傷所產生的記憶解離機制，造成了無法逾越的檢控鴻溝。更為殘酷的是，現行制度完全無法體現加害者對兒童造成的終生且不可逆轉的情感摧殘。對於發育中的兒童，長期侵犯會徹底崩解其信任感與人格發展；肉體傷痕或會癒合，但心理創傷卻是永久性的。現行法律只按被拆分的單次控罪判刑，根本未能展現持續侵犯對兒童身心健康所造成的毀滅性傷害。
- 倖存者BoBo：「持續性侵犯兒童的犯人（不涉及強姦）判的刑期比觸犯單次性強姦的犯人更輕，不訂立條例，根本達不到保護兒童的目的。現行法律制度下，持續性性侵的罪行只能夠以獨立事件作提告，未有考慮案件發生持續性。我被長時間侵犯，而被告最後的刑判可能只有三至四年，遠遠不及他侵犯我的年日。由事件發生開始，我便失去了開心的感覺，回憶起我的童年，第一時間只想起在我身上發生過的性侵事件。中學時，一個不希望自傷的人，卻用間尺𠝹下了一條條血痕，心裏的痛，卻沒有人看見。由我決定報警的一刻，社工就告訴我，我需要逐一回憶事件的日期及細節。我打開白紙寫下了一宗又一宗，卻面對嚴重的flashback。最終，我承受不到精神壓力，服藥自殺，又再一次被救回來。」
- 倖存者Elaine：「當上庭被逼回憶具體那幾次的細節，卻反過來用『你分不清那幾次的區別』來懲罰我、質疑我。同時，現行法律因為方便只承認其中幾次，並按那幾次判處輕微的刑期，忽略時長時，這無異於在告訴社會：受害人長年承受的精神折磨在法律上毫無重要性。這種制度性的忽視，比肉體的傷害更令人絕望。」
（四）現行處理方式的局限與改革的必要性
訂立新建議罪行的目的，是要克服因多項不能精確描述的控罪，以及在一段長時間內發生的指控罪行所引致的困難。政府當年也承認樣式控罪不能為兒童提供全面保護，並同意將持續侵犯強行拆分逐一提控「完全是人為的做法」。雖然政府和兩會曾指詹漢民一案所確立的處理方法（樣式控罪）至今沒有衍生法律程序上的問題，但對於持續性侵倖存者未能獲得司法公義、隨之以來的傷害、侵犯者罪責不符，這些難道就不是問題？這些問題現在需要由倖存者獨自承擔，法例不能只為了「沒有衍生（法律）問題」而故步自封。
有反對聲音指，「持續性侵犯兒童」罪行實施對被告人不公平，因為控罪無法確定犯案的時間地點等細節。然而，在當年建議修例的文件中，政府已明確指出，持續性侵兒童罪行中的被告人權益所獲得的保障，與詹漢民一案所採用的處理方法相同，包括需要有足夠的證據，以及法庭有責任確保被告人在所有法律程序中得到公平對待。控方仍有舉證責任，須以毫無合理疑點的標準證明性剝削的關係持續存在。換言之，訂立獨立罪行並不代表舉證責任的降低或免除，而是讓舉證方式更能對應此類案件的客觀現實。
----------------- 發起組織介紹 -----------------
「我們都是 X 」是由一群性暴力倖存者成立的「性罪行法律改革關注組」。我們在各自顛簸的療癒之路上相遇，因而決定並肩發聲。希望透過分享更多關於性暴力的資訊促進社會討論，讓社會看見「Victim-blaming (責怪受害者)」文化下的無心惡意；同時積極推動性罪行法律改革，以減少受害者在尋求司法公義的過程中所遭受的傷害。
【留意：關注組為自發組成的倡議小組，並非註冊團體，*不會收取任何捐款*。網站上的捐款按鈕由 Change.org 平台提供，所有捐款均直接由 Change.org 平台收取，與本關注組無關。】
Petition Urging the Hong Kong Government to Address Legal Loopholes in Sexual Offence Against “Persistent Child Sexual Abuse” as Part of Legislation in the "Improving the Laws on Sexual Offences in Hong Kong"
The government has proposed to improve Hong Kong’s sexual offenses legislation under the Security Bureau. Authorities state that this amendment aims, on one hand, to strengthen protection for victims of sexual offenses and, on the other hand, to bring the Sexual Offenses Ordinance in line with current times. The Government stated that it attaches great importance to the well-being of the general public, particularly children and persons with mental impairment (PMIs), and to shielding them against sexual exploitation and abuse. Under area (2) “Sexual Offences Involving Children” of the consultation paper “Improving The Laws On Sexual Offences In Hong Kong,” several new offences have been proposed, and the direction is commendable. However, the newly proposed offences in the paper mainly targets single acts of abuse and did not mentioned to establish “persistent child sexual abuse”—a standalone offence addressing repeated abuse.
Under the current law, prosecutions for sexual abuse of children are based on separate charges for each individual incident of sexual abuse, which fails to accurately reflect the harm suffered by children subjected to persistent sexual abuse. Even if a conviction is ultimately charged for a specific incident, the court can only impose a sentence based on the limited charges filed—a situation that falls far short of the reality faced by victims who have endured hundreds of instances of abuse. Consequently, the sentence is unable to truly reflect the severity of the persistent abuse and the gravity of the trauma endured by the victims.
We urge the government to seize this opportunity for legal reform to introduce “persistent child sexual abuse” as a distinct offense, thereby closing a significant prosecutorial loophole in the consultation paper and the Law Reform Commission’s recommendations. This would reduce the unreasonable burden of proof imposed on victims by requiring separate prosecutions for each incident, ensure that the law truly reflects the severity of the trauma suffered by victims, and to promote greater social protection for children.
We must point out that this legal gap directly contradicts the guiding principles established by the Law Reform Commission for this reform, as well as the policy objectives set forth by the government. First, Clarity of the Law: the current requirement for child witness to provide evidence on a case-by-case basis is completely impractical for cases of persistent sexual abuse, and the law fundamentally fails to address the unique realities of such cases; Second, Respect for Sexual Autonomy: The severity of long-term, persistent abuse is unable to reflected in sentencing, resulting in the systematic devaluation of victims’ sexual autonomy; third, Protective Principle: The most severe abuses are paradoxically the hardest to prosecute, constituting a systemic failure of protection; fourth, Adherence to the Basic Law, the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap. 383) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Children have the right to special protection under international human rights standards, yet the current system makes it effectively harder for child victims to obtain justice than for adults.
The government had already discussed establishing this offense back in the early 2000s, but due to concerns raised by the Hong Kong Bar Association (HKBA) and The Law Society of Hong Kong (HKLS) at the time regarding the implementation of legal details, the submission of amendment proposals was temporarily shelved. More than twenty years later, while several Australian states have successively enacted legislation to address this loophole, Hong Kong remains unchanged. We must remind that the response from HKBA and HKLS was addressed over 20 years ago and many cases have proved the failure of prosecution through sample charge in these 2 decades. We must take active action to establish directions in closing this legal loophole.
(1) The Reality of Child Sexual Abuse: Persistent, Covert, and Delayed Disclosure
According the retrospective study published by Rainlily, between 2019 and 2023, 60 percent of the child victims have reported persistent sexual abuse cases, yet ultimately only 30 percent of victims reported the abuse to the police. The median delay in reporting was as long as nine and a half years (3,450 days). “Persistent child sexual abuse” remains a severely neglected social issue.
Perpetrators are often closely related to the child victims; they exploit the trust and authority associated with adulthood to coerce children into compliance and silence, making delayed disclosure the norm. In contrast, the rate of reporting for other adulthood sexual violence cases is 45 percent, with a median delay of only 35 days. This clearly demonstrates that the challenges faced by child sexual abuse victims are far more severe than those in other sexual assault cases.
(2) The Mismatch Between Current Prosecution Standard and the Reality of Trauma
The rule against duplicity in the current legal framework requires each count in an indictment prosecutes only one offence - one instance of misconduct, and victims are required to provide clear details regarding each separate incident of abuse. However, victims of childhood sexual abuse, limited by their mental and cognitive development at the time, often struggle to accurately distinguish the specific time, place, and sequence of events for each incident. Furthermore, since most cases are not disclosed until many years later, victims often find it difficult to accurately recall the specific circumstances of each individual sexual assault after so many years, making it impossible to meet the threshold for a successful prosecution.
Research shows that after experiencing trauma, victims’ memories may become fragmented, disjointed, or difficult to narrate coherently—a stark contrast to the linear, well-organized testimony the public expects. When facing ongoing and repeated sexual assault, survivors often recall only the “core elements” and recurring patterns of the incidents, while struggling to provide specific details about individual incidents—such as exact dates, locations, or the number of times the assault occurred. At police stations or in court, this forgetfulness or uncertainty is often interpreted—or even attacked—as a sign of false testimony, thereby undermining the survivor’s credibility as a witness. For victims who are unable to provide detailed accounts of several separate incidents, the process may end at the police reporting stage, leaving them without even the opportunity to bring the perpetrator to trial.
- Survivor Elaine: “It is utterly absurd for the court to demand that a child witness who has experienced extreme fear and trauma must, like a CCTV camera, impost their memory of every detail to minute—such as which hand was used, the exact minute, and the sequence of events—without the slightest error. Any attempt to explain one’s psychological struggle is often cut short by the defense on the grounds that it is ‘matters extraneous to the issues’. For me, the harm caused by the judicial process was even greater than the trauma of the incident itself. As for the devastating impact this process has on a victim’s life, there are currently no legal or welfare procedures in place to address it. Years after the incident, I still have nightmares about the court proceedings, in which I see myself as the witness the defense attorney claimed had personality issues.”
What more alarming is that in cases of persistent child sexual abuse characterized by high frequency—such as when sexual abuse has become a routine part of daily life that can recur at any time—the victim’s ability to identify the unique circumstances of each incident diminishes, making it increasingly difficult to convict the perpetrator. As early as 2002, when the courts submitted a document proposing amendments to relevant offences to the Legislative Council, they pointed out: “The court observed (p.387) that there is a degree of absurdity in holding that someone cannot be prosecuted because he is alleged to have offended often in the same way, whereas he might well be if he had offended only once or twice.” This demonstrates that more than twenty years ago, the courts had already recognized that the most serious legal violations are, under the current impractical and unreasonable burden of proof system, the most difficult to prosecute.
- Survivor BoBo: “Once I sat into the home-like video interview room, the clinical psychologist simply guided me to describe four counts of incidents: the first incident, the last incident, the most memorable one, and the most unusual one — and added, ‘Is there anything else you’d like to add?’ Under the current system, the court avoids making the indictment too lengthy and does not record every incident that occurred. For me, having to clearly recall all the dates and times before reporting the crime to the police caused me to experience severe emotional fluctuation. “I had to carefully recall exactly which incident occurred during which time period”. Enduring prolonged sexual abuse at home was, for me, simply part of my daily life. Yet, when reporting the crime, I was required to list the specific differences between each sexual abuse in order to file a case. Am I supposed to be grateful that different situations occurred?”
(3) Dual Limitations on Prosecution and Sentencing
Under the current law, prosecutions for sexual abuse of children are based on separate charges for each individual incident of sexual abuse. The difficulty in prosecution lies in the fact that: for example—even if the defendant engaged in numerous instances of inappropriate physical contact with a child, and even though the victim had confided in a trusted adult who could testify, such evidence is unable to be admitted in court under the current legal framework because these acts constitute “non-prosecution ruling,” despite the fact that statements have been taken. Such evidence should otherwise better reflect the ongoing nature of the case and the pattern of repeated occurrences over time.
At the same time, during court proceedings, victims may only provide testimony against each charge separately. Some victims have stated that whenever they attempted to describe the full circumstances of the case in court—for example, “How many times did this type of abuse occur in total?”—they were immediately cut off by the defense attorney on the grounds of “Safeguarding the rights of the defendant”. This prevented victims from fully describing the persistence nature of the abuse in court and prevented the court from comprehensively assessing the overall severity of the defendant’s abuse of the victims.
Even if a conviction is ultimately charged for a specific incident, the court can only impose a sentence based on the limited charges filed—which falls far short of the reality and severity of the victim having endured hundreds of instances of abuse. Such a sentence fails to truly reflect the severity of the persistent sexual abuse or the gravity of the trauma suffered by the child victim. In fact, the current prosecution requirements are so stringent as to be nearly inhumane for child victims—the law rigidly demands that details of each individual incident be provided, completely disregarding the memory dissociation mechanisms that arise during the formation of trauma and the nature of children, whose minds are still developing, face prolonged trauma, thereby creating an impossible barrier to prosecution.
The current system fails entirely to reflect the lifelong and irreversible trauma inflicted on children by their abusers. For a developing child, prolonged abuse completely shatters their sense of trust and affects their personality development; physical scars may heal, but psychological trauma is permanent and invisible. Current laws impose sentences based only on individual sample charges failing entirely to reflect the devastating harm that sustained abuse inflicts on a child’s physical and mental well-being.
- Survivor BoBo: “Offenders who sexually abuse children over a prolonged period (excluding rape) receive lighter sentences than those convicted of a single act of rape. Without specific legislation, the goal of protecting children simply is unable to be achieved. Under the current legal system, crimes of persistance child sexual abuse can only be prosecuted as separate incidents under sample charge, without taking into account the persistence nature of the abuse. I was abused for a long time, yet the defendant’s final sentence might only be three to four years—far shorter than the years he abused me.
Ever since the incident began, I’ve lost the ability to feel joy. When I recall my childhood, the first thing that comes to mind is the sexual abuse I encountered. In middle school, even though I didn’t want to harm myself, I used a ruler to cut deep, bloody gashes into my skin—yet no one saw the pain in my heart. From the moment I decided to report it to the police, the social worker told me I needed to recall the dates and details of each count of charge one by one. I took a blank sheet of paper and wrote down one incident after another, but I was hit with severe flashbacks. In the end, I couldn’t bear the psychological pressure, so I attempted suicide by taking an overdose of medication—and was rescued once again.” - Survivor Elaine: “When I was in court and forced to recall the details of those specific incidents, they instead punished and questioned me by saying, ‘You can’t tell the difference between those incidents’. At the same time, for the sake of convenience, current laws only recognize a few of these incidents and impose lenient sentences based on those, ignoring the duration and the severity of the abuse. This is tantamount to telling society that the mental torment the victim has endured for years holds no legal significance. This institutional neglect is even more despair-inducing than physical harm.”
(4) Limitations of the Current Prosecution Approach and the Need for Reform
The purpose of establishing the proposed new offense is to overcome the difficulties arising from multiple charges that are unable to be precisely described, as well as from alleged offenses committed over an extended period of time. Back in the early 2000s, the government also acknowledged that “sample charges” could not provide comprehensive protection for children and agreed that forcibly splitting up charges for ongoing abuse and prosecuting them individually was “entirely an artificial approach”.
Although the government and the two legal professional parties have pointed out that the approach established in the Chim Hon-man case (sample charges) has not given rise to any procedural issues to date, but isn’t the failure of prosecution among survivors of persistent child sexual abuse to obtain justice, the resulting harm, and the mismatch between the perpetrator’s guilt and the charges not problems in themselves? These issues are currently tolerated solely by the survivors; the law is unable to remain stagnant simply because it has “not given rise to (legal) problems.”
Opponents argue that the offense of “persistent child sexual abuse”(PCSA) is unfair to the defendant because the charge does not require the child witness to specify details such as the time and location of the offenses. However, in the documents proposing the legislative amendment back in 2000s, the government clearly stated that the rule of protections afforded to defendants in cases of PCSA are identical to those applied in the Chim Hon-man case, including the requirement for sufficient evidence and the court’s responsibility to ensure the defendant is treated fairly throughout all legal proceedings. The prosecutor is still required to prove and must demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the relationship of sexual exploitation was persistence. In other words, establishing a separate offense does not imply a reduction or waiver of the burden of proof, but rather allows the method of proof to better align with the reality of such cases.
----------------- About the Organizing Group -----------------
“We Are X” is a “Sexual Offence Reforms Concern Group”. We gathered while navigating our own turbulent journeys toward healing and decided to speak out together. We hope to foster public discussion by sharing more information about sexual violence, so that society can recognize the unintentional harm caused by a culture of “victim-blaming”; at the same time, we actively advocate for legal reform regarding sexual offenses to reduce the harm victims suffer while seeking justice.
4,224
The Issue
Scroll down for English Version.
政府建議完善香港的性罪行法例，當局表示是次修例一方面希望加強對性罪行受害人的保護，另一方面令性罪行條例與時並進。政府表示：「十分重視社會大眾，特別是兒童及精神缺損人士的福祉，致力保護他們免受性剝削和侵犯是政府訂立性罪行法例的初衷」。「完善香港的性罪行法例」諮詢文件在範疇(二)「涉及兒童的性罪行」中，新訂了多項罪行，方向值得肯定。然而，文件中新建議的罪行均針對單一侵害行為，並未設立「持續性侵犯」—— 針對重複性侵害的獨立罪行。
現行法例就兒童性侵犯的檢控方式以每一次獨立的侵犯事件起訴，未能真實地反映受持續性侵犯兒童的傷害。即使最終能就個別事件成功入罪，法庭也只能按有限的控罪判刑，與受害人經歷過數百次侵犯的真實情況相差甚遠，判刑難以真實反映有關持續性侵行為的惡劣程度，以及受害人所承受創傷的嚴重性。我們嚴肅地促請政府把握是次法律改革的機會，加入「持續性侵犯兒童」獨立罪行，填補諮詢文件及法改會建議中的一項重要檢控漏洞，減少受害人因逐次提控而承受的不合理舉證負擔，讓法例能真正反映受害人所承受創傷的嚴重程度，促進社會對兒童更進一步的保護。
我們必須指出，這項法律空白直接牴觸了法改會為是次改革訂立的指導原則，以及政府自身訂明的政策目的。其一，法律必須清晰明確：現行逐次舉證要求對於持續性侵案件完全不切實際，法律根本沒有回應此類案件的特殊現實；其二，尊重性自主權：長期持續侵犯的嚴重程度無法在判刑中體現，令受害人的性自主權被制度性地貶抑；其三，保護原則：最嚴重的侵犯反而最難被追究，是制度性的保護失敗；其四，符合人權法：兒童依據國際人權標準享有獲得特別保護的權利，現行制度卻令兒童受害者實際上比成人更難獲得公義。政府早於2000年代初已討論訂立此罪行，惟礙於當時大律師公會和律師公會對於法律細節執行上的擔憂，暫時擱置提交修訂建議。事隔逾二十年，澳洲多個州份已相繼立法回應此漏洞，香港卻仍在原地踏步。我們必須指出，香港大律師公會及香港律師學會的回應已是二十多年前的事，而過去這二十年間，許多案例已證明透過「樣本式控罪」進行檢控的做法並未奏效。我們必須採取積極行動彌補這個法律漏洞。
（一）兒童性侵的現實：持續、隱蔽、延遲披露
根據風雨蘭提供的服務使用者數據，在2019至2023年間，六成兒童性侵事件屬持續發生，最終只有三成受害人報警求助，延遲報警的時間中位數更長達九年半（3,450天）。「持續性侵犯兒童」仍是一個遭到嚴重忽視的社會問題。侵犯者往往與受害兒童關係密切，利用成年人的信任和權威迫使兒童就範並保持沉默，以致延遲揭發成為常態。相比之下，其他非兒童性暴力案件的報警求助比率為四成半，延遲報警時間中位數僅為35天，足見兒童性侵受害者所面對的困境遠比其他性侵案件嚴峻。
（二）現行舉證標準與創傷現實的錯配
目前的法律框架要求公訴書內每一項罪名只能涵蓋一個不當行為，受害人需要就每次獨立的侵犯事件提供清晰的細節。然而，遭受童年性侵的當事人受當年心智和認知發展能力所限，難以準確分辨每宗事件的具體時地與過程；加上大部分案件事隔多年才披露，受害人往往難以在多年後準確憶述每次被性侵時的具體情況，根本無法達到成功檢控的門檻。
研究顯示，受害人在經歷創傷後，記憶可能出現碎片化、跳躍或難以連貫敘述的情況，這與大眾期望的線性、井井有條的證供大相逕庭。當面對持續反覆發生的性侵時，倖存者往往只能記得事件的「核心內容」和慣性模式，而難以準確回應單一事件的具體細節，例如確切的日期、地點或次數。在警署或法庭上，這種遺忘或不確定，常被理解或攻擊為證詞失實的象徵，從而動搖倖存者作為證人的可信程度。對於未能詳盡舉出數宗獨立情節的受害人而言，更可能止步於警署報案階段，連把侵犯者帶上法庭接受審訊的機會也沒有。
- 倖存者Elaine：「法庭要求一個經歷極度恐懼和創傷的人，必須像一部CCTV一樣，毫無差池地記錄所有微少細節（如左右手、精確分鐘、前後順序），十分荒謬。任何試圖解釋心理掙扎的言論，往往會被辯方以『與案情無關』為由打斷。對我而言，司法程序對我帶來的傷害甚至比事件本身令我更受傷。至於這個過程對受害人生活造成的毀滅性打擊，在幾乎沒有任何法律或福利程序予以承載。事發多年後，我仍會發夢夢見當時上庭的情況，認為自己就是辯方律師宣稱人格有問題的證人。
更嚴峻的是，重複性愈高的長期性侵害——例如性侵已成為隨時可能重複發生的生活日常——受害人能辨識每次性侵獨特情節的能力愈低，加害者則愈難被定罪。法庭早在2002年的立法會提出修訂相關罪行文件時已指出：若某人常以同一方式犯罪而決定不能予以檢控，但只犯一次或兩次卻可被檢控，這會顯得有點荒謬。這說明早於二十多年前，法庭已承認法律上最嚴重的侵犯，卻在現行不切實際及不合理的舉證制度下最難獲得追究。
- 倖存者BoBo：「當坐入錄影會面房時，臨床心理學家只引導我說出四件事件：第一次事件、最後一次事件、最深刻的一次及最不同的一次，並加上一句有沒有其他補充。在現行的制度下，法庭避免公訴書過長，並不會記錄所有發生過的事件。對於我而言，在報警之前我需要清晰記得所有日期及時間，讓我經歷了嚴重的情緒波動。因為我需要仔細回憶，到底那個時段發生了那件事。在家裏經歷長時間性侵，對於我而言等於我的日常。然而，在報警時卻需要列出每宗性罪行的不同之處，才能作出提告。我需要慶幸自己發生了不同的狀況嗎？」
（三）檢控與判刑的雙重局限
現時檢控方式以每一次獨立的侵犯事件起訴。檢控困難在於：（例子）即使被告與兒童有很多不恰當的身體接觸，儘管受害人曾與身邊信任的成年人提出過，他們亦可以做證，但由於這些案情屬「不被起訴行為」，儘管已經錄下口供，在現行法律框架下並沒有呈堂機會。原本這些證據本應更能反映到案件的持續性質、長期發生的模式。
同時，在法庭審訊過程中，受害人只可以就每項控罪獨立提供證供。有受害人表示，每當在庭上提及完整的案情 —— 例如：「同一類型侵犯事件總共發生了多少次」—— 便立即被辯方律師以「維護被告權利」為由制止作供，令受害人無法在庭上完整敘述事件的持續性，法庭亦無法全面衡量被告侵犯受害人的整體嚴重程度。
即使最終能就個別事件成功入罪，法庭也只能按有限的控罪判刑，與受害人經歷過數百次侵犯的真實情況相差甚遠，判刑難以真實反映有關持續性侵行為的惡劣程度，以及受害人所承受創傷的嚴重性。事實上，現行檢控條件苛刻得近乎不仁——法律僵化地要求提供每次獨立細節，完全無視兒童心智發育未成熟時，面對長期創傷所產生的記憶解離機制，造成了無法逾越的檢控鴻溝。更為殘酷的是，現行制度完全無法體現加害者對兒童造成的終生且不可逆轉的情感摧殘。對於發育中的兒童，長期侵犯會徹底崩解其信任感與人格發展；肉體傷痕或會癒合，但心理創傷卻是永久性的。現行法律只按被拆分的單次控罪判刑，根本未能展現持續侵犯對兒童身心健康所造成的毀滅性傷害。
- 倖存者BoBo：「持續性侵犯兒童的犯人（不涉及強姦）判的刑期比觸犯單次性強姦的犯人更輕，不訂立條例，根本達不到保護兒童的目的。現行法律制度下，持續性性侵的罪行只能夠以獨立事件作提告，未有考慮案件發生持續性。我被長時間侵犯，而被告最後的刑判可能只有三至四年，遠遠不及他侵犯我的年日。由事件發生開始，我便失去了開心的感覺，回憶起我的童年，第一時間只想起在我身上發生過的性侵事件。中學時，一個不希望自傷的人，卻用間尺𠝹下了一條條血痕，心裏的痛，卻沒有人看見。由我決定報警的一刻，社工就告訴我，我需要逐一回憶事件的日期及細節。我打開白紙寫下了一宗又一宗，卻面對嚴重的flashback。最終，我承受不到精神壓力，服藥自殺，又再一次被救回來。」
- 倖存者Elaine：「當上庭被逼回憶具體那幾次的細節，卻反過來用『你分不清那幾次的區別』來懲罰我、質疑我。同時，現行法律因為方便只承認其中幾次，並按那幾次判處輕微的刑期，忽略時長時，這無異於在告訴社會：受害人長年承受的精神折磨在法律上毫無重要性。這種制度性的忽視，比肉體的傷害更令人絕望。」
（四）現行處理方式的局限與改革的必要性
訂立新建議罪行的目的，是要克服因多項不能精確描述的控罪，以及在一段長時間內發生的指控罪行所引致的困難。政府當年也承認樣式控罪不能為兒童提供全面保護，並同意將持續侵犯強行拆分逐一提控「完全是人為的做法」。雖然政府和兩會曾指詹漢民一案所確立的處理方法（樣式控罪）至今沒有衍生法律程序上的問題，但對於持續性侵倖存者未能獲得司法公義、隨之以來的傷害、侵犯者罪責不符，這些難道就不是問題？這些問題現在需要由倖存者獨自承擔，法例不能只為了「沒有衍生（法律）問題」而故步自封。
有反對聲音指，「持續性侵犯兒童」罪行實施對被告人不公平，因為控罪無法確定犯案的時間地點等細節。然而，在當年建議修例的文件中，政府已明確指出，持續性侵兒童罪行中的被告人權益所獲得的保障，與詹漢民一案所採用的處理方法相同，包括需要有足夠的證據，以及法庭有責任確保被告人在所有法律程序中得到公平對待。控方仍有舉證責任，須以毫無合理疑點的標準證明性剝削的關係持續存在。換言之，訂立獨立罪行並不代表舉證責任的降低或免除，而是讓舉證方式更能對應此類案件的客觀現實。
----------------- 發起組織介紹 -----------------
「我們都是 X 」是由一群性暴力倖存者成立的「性罪行法律改革關注組」。我們在各自顛簸的療癒之路上相遇，因而決定並肩發聲。希望透過分享更多關於性暴力的資訊促進社會討論，讓社會看見「Victim-blaming (責怪受害者)」文化下的無心惡意；同時積極推動性罪行法律改革，以減少受害者在尋求司法公義的過程中所遭受的傷害。
【留意：關注組為自發組成的倡議小組，並非註冊團體，*不會收取任何捐款*。網站上的捐款按鈕由 Change.org 平台提供，所有捐款均直接由 Change.org 平台收取，與本關注組無關。】
Petition Urging the Hong Kong Government to Address Legal Loopholes in Sexual Offence Against “Persistent Child Sexual Abuse” as Part of Legislation in the "Improving the Laws on Sexual Offences in Hong Kong"
The government has proposed to improve Hong Kong’s sexual offenses legislation under the Security Bureau. Authorities state that this amendment aims, on one hand, to strengthen protection for victims of sexual offenses and, on the other hand, to bring the Sexual Offenses Ordinance in line with current times. The Government stated that it attaches great importance to the well-being of the general public, particularly children and persons with mental impairment (PMIs), and to shielding them against sexual exploitation and abuse. Under area (2) “Sexual Offences Involving Children” of the consultation paper “Improving The Laws On Sexual Offences In Hong Kong,” several new offences have been proposed, and the direction is commendable. However, the newly proposed offences in the paper mainly targets single acts of abuse and did not mentioned to establish “persistent child sexual abuse”—a standalone offence addressing repeated abuse.
Under the current law, prosecutions for sexual abuse of children are based on separate charges for each individual incident of sexual abuse, which fails to accurately reflect the harm suffered by children subjected to persistent sexual abuse. Even if a conviction is ultimately charged for a specific incident, the court can only impose a sentence based on the limited charges filed—a situation that falls far short of the reality faced by victims who have endured hundreds of instances of abuse. Consequently, the sentence is unable to truly reflect the severity of the persistent abuse and the gravity of the trauma endured by the victims.
We urge the government to seize this opportunity for legal reform to introduce “persistent child sexual abuse” as a distinct offense, thereby closing a significant prosecutorial loophole in the consultation paper and the Law Reform Commission’s recommendations. This would reduce the unreasonable burden of proof imposed on victims by requiring separate prosecutions for each incident, ensure that the law truly reflects the severity of the trauma suffered by victims, and to promote greater social protection for children.
We must point out that this legal gap directly contradicts the guiding principles established by the Law Reform Commission for this reform, as well as the policy objectives set forth by the government. First, Clarity of the Law: the current requirement for child witness to provide evidence on a case-by-case basis is completely impractical for cases of persistent sexual abuse, and the law fundamentally fails to address the unique realities of such cases; Second, Respect for Sexual Autonomy: The severity of long-term, persistent abuse is unable to reflected in sentencing, resulting in the systematic devaluation of victims’ sexual autonomy; third, Protective Principle: The most severe abuses are paradoxically the hardest to prosecute, constituting a systemic failure of protection; fourth, Adherence to the Basic Law, the Hong Kong Bill of Rights Ordinance (Cap. 383) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights: Children have the right to special protection under international human rights standards, yet the current system makes it effectively harder for child victims to obtain justice than for adults.
The government had already discussed establishing this offense back in the early 2000s, but due to concerns raised by the Hong Kong Bar Association (HKBA) and The Law Society of Hong Kong (HKLS) at the time regarding the implementation of legal details, the submission of amendment proposals was temporarily shelved. More than twenty years later, while several Australian states have successively enacted legislation to address this loophole, Hong Kong remains unchanged. We must remind that the response from HKBA and HKLS was addressed over 20 years ago and many cases have proved the failure of prosecution through sample charge in these 2 decades. We must take active action to establish directions in closing this legal loophole.
(1) The Reality of Child Sexual Abuse: Persistent, Covert, and Delayed Disclosure
According the retrospective study published by Rainlily, between 2019 and 2023, 60 percent of the child victims have reported persistent sexual abuse cases, yet ultimately only 30 percent of victims reported the abuse to the police. The median delay in reporting was as long as nine and a half years (3,450 days). “Persistent child sexual abuse” remains a severely neglected social issue.
Perpetrators are often closely related to the child victims; they exploit the trust and authority associated with adulthood to coerce children into compliance and silence, making delayed disclosure the norm. In contrast, the rate of reporting for other adulthood sexual violence cases is 45 percent, with a median delay of only 35 days. This clearly demonstrates that the challenges faced by child sexual abuse victims are far more severe than those in other sexual assault cases.
(2) The Mismatch Between Current Prosecution Standard and the Reality of Trauma
The rule against duplicity in the current legal framework requires each count in an indictment prosecutes only one offence - one instance of misconduct, and victims are required to provide clear details regarding each separate incident of abuse. However, victims of childhood sexual abuse, limited by their mental and cognitive development at the time, often struggle to accurately distinguish the specific time, place, and sequence of events for each incident. Furthermore, since most cases are not disclosed until many years later, victims often find it difficult to accurately recall the specific circumstances of each individual sexual assault after so many years, making it impossible to meet the threshold for a successful prosecution.
Research shows that after experiencing trauma, victims’ memories may become fragmented, disjointed, or difficult to narrate coherently—a stark contrast to the linear, well-organized testimony the public expects. When facing ongoing and repeated sexual assault, survivors often recall only the “core elements” and recurring patterns of the incidents, while struggling to provide specific details about individual incidents—such as exact dates, locations, or the number of times the assault occurred. At police stations or in court, this forgetfulness or uncertainty is often interpreted—or even attacked—as a sign of false testimony, thereby undermining the survivor’s credibility as a witness. For victims who are unable to provide detailed accounts of several separate incidents, the process may end at the police reporting stage, leaving them without even the opportunity to bring the perpetrator to trial.
- Survivor Elaine: “It is utterly absurd for the court to demand that a child witness who has experienced extreme fear and trauma must, like a CCTV camera, impost their memory of every detail to minute—such as which hand was used, the exact minute, and the sequence of events—without the slightest error. Any attempt to explain one’s psychological struggle is often cut short by the defense on the grounds that it is ‘matters extraneous to the issues’. For me, the harm caused by the judicial process was even greater than the trauma of the incident itself. As for the devastating impact this process has on a victim’s life, there are currently no legal or welfare procedures in place to address it. Years after the incident, I still have nightmares about the court proceedings, in which I see myself as the witness the defense attorney claimed had personality issues.”
What more alarming is that in cases of persistent child sexual abuse characterized by high frequency—such as when sexual abuse has become a routine part of daily life that can recur at any time—the victim’s ability to identify the unique circumstances of each incident diminishes, making it increasingly difficult to convict the perpetrator. As early as 2002, when the courts submitted a document proposing amendments to relevant offences to the Legislative Council, they pointed out: “The court observed (p.387) that there is a degree of absurdity in holding that someone cannot be prosecuted because he is alleged to have offended often in the same way, whereas he might well be if he had offended only once or twice.” This demonstrates that more than twenty years ago, the courts had already recognized that the most serious legal violations are, under the current impractical and unreasonable burden of proof system, the most difficult to prosecute.
- Survivor BoBo: “Once I sat into the home-like video interview room, the clinical psychologist simply guided me to describe four counts of incidents: the first incident, the last incident, the most memorable one, and the most unusual one — and added, ‘Is there anything else you’d like to add?’ Under the current system, the court avoids making the indictment too lengthy and does not record every incident that occurred. For me, having to clearly recall all the dates and times before reporting the crime to the police caused me to experience severe emotional fluctuation. “I had to carefully recall exactly which incident occurred during which time period”. Enduring prolonged sexual abuse at home was, for me, simply part of my daily life. Yet, when reporting the crime, I was required to list the specific differences between each sexual abuse in order to file a case. Am I supposed to be grateful that different situations occurred?”
(3) Dual Limitations on Prosecution and Sentencing
Under the current law, prosecutions for sexual abuse of children are based on separate charges for each individual incident of sexual abuse. The difficulty in prosecution lies in the fact that: for example—even if the defendant engaged in numerous instances of inappropriate physical contact with a child, and even though the victim had confided in a trusted adult who could testify, such evidence is unable to be admitted in court under the current legal framework because these acts constitute “non-prosecution ruling,” despite the fact that statements have been taken. Such evidence should otherwise better reflect the ongoing nature of the case and the pattern of repeated occurrences over time.
At the same time, during court proceedings, victims may only provide testimony against each charge separately. Some victims have stated that whenever they attempted to describe the full circumstances of the case in court—for example, “How many times did this type of abuse occur in total?”—they were immediately cut off by the defense attorney on the grounds of “Safeguarding the rights of the defendant”. This prevented victims from fully describing the persistence nature of the abuse in court and prevented the court from comprehensively assessing the overall severity of the defendant’s abuse of the victims.
Even if a conviction is ultimately charged for a specific incident, the court can only impose a sentence based on the limited charges filed—which falls far short of the reality and severity of the victim having endured hundreds of instances of abuse. Such a sentence fails to truly reflect the severity of the persistent sexual abuse or the gravity of the trauma suffered by the child victim. In fact, the current prosecution requirements are so stringent as to be nearly inhumane for child victims—the law rigidly demands that details of each individual incident be provided, completely disregarding the memory dissociation mechanisms that arise during the formation of trauma and the nature of children, whose minds are still developing, face prolonged trauma, thereby creating an impossible barrier to prosecution.
The current system fails entirely to reflect the lifelong and irreversible trauma inflicted on children by their abusers. For a developing child, prolonged abuse completely shatters their sense of trust and affects their personality development; physical scars may heal, but psychological trauma is permanent and invisible. Current laws impose sentences based only on individual sample charges failing entirely to reflect the devastating harm that sustained abuse inflicts on a child’s physical and mental well-being.
- Survivor BoBo: “Offenders who sexually abuse children over a prolonged period (excluding rape) receive lighter sentences than those convicted of a single act of rape. Without specific legislation, the goal of protecting children simply is unable to be achieved. Under the current legal system, crimes of persistance child sexual abuse can only be prosecuted as separate incidents under sample charge, without taking into account the persistence nature of the abuse. I was abused for a long time, yet the defendant’s final sentence might only be three to four years—far shorter than the years he abused me.
Ever since the incident began, I’ve lost the ability to feel joy. When I recall my childhood, the first thing that comes to mind is the sexual abuse I encountered. In middle school, even though I didn’t want to harm myself, I used a ruler to cut deep, bloody gashes into my skin—yet no one saw the pain in my heart. From the moment I decided to report it to the police, the social worker told me I needed to recall the dates and details of each count of charge one by one. I took a blank sheet of paper and wrote down one incident after another, but I was hit with severe flashbacks. In the end, I couldn’t bear the psychological pressure, so I attempted suicide by taking an overdose of medication—and was rescued once again.” - Survivor Elaine: “When I was in court and forced to recall the details of those specific incidents, they instead punished and questioned me by saying, ‘You can’t tell the difference between those incidents’. At the same time, for the sake of convenience, current laws only recognize a few of these incidents and impose lenient sentences based on those, ignoring the duration and the severity of the abuse. This is tantamount to telling society that the mental torment the victim has endured for years holds no legal significance. This institutional neglect is even more despair-inducing than physical harm.”
(4) Limitations of the Current Prosecution Approach and the Need for Reform
The purpose of establishing the proposed new offense is to overcome the difficulties arising from multiple charges that are unable to be precisely described, as well as from alleged offenses committed over an extended period of time. Back in the early 2000s, the government also acknowledged that “sample charges” could not provide comprehensive protection for children and agreed that forcibly splitting up charges for ongoing abuse and prosecuting them individually was “entirely an artificial approach”.
Although the government and the two legal professional parties have pointed out that the approach established in the Chim Hon-man case (sample charges) has not given rise to any procedural issues to date, but isn’t the failure of prosecution among survivors of persistent child sexual abuse to obtain justice, the resulting harm, and the mismatch between the perpetrator’s guilt and the charges not problems in themselves? These issues are currently tolerated solely by the survivors; the law is unable to remain stagnant simply because it has “not given rise to (legal) problems.”
Opponents argue that the offense of “persistent child sexual abuse”(PCSA) is unfair to the defendant because the charge does not require the child witness to specify details such as the time and location of the offenses. However, in the documents proposing the legislative amendment back in 2000s, the government clearly stated that the rule of protections afforded to defendants in cases of PCSA are identical to those applied in the Chim Hon-man case, including the requirement for sufficient evidence and the court’s responsibility to ensure the defendant is treated fairly throughout all legal proceedings. The prosecutor is still required to prove and must demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the relationship of sexual exploitation was persistence. In other words, establishing a separate offense does not imply a reduction or waiver of the burden of proof, but rather allows the method of proof to better align with the reality of such cases.
----------------- About the Organizing Group -----------------
“We Are X” is a “Sexual Offence Reforms Concern Group”. We gathered while navigating our own turbulent journeys toward healing and decided to speak out together. We hope to foster public discussion by sharing more information about sexual violence, so that society can recognize the unintentional harm caused by a culture of “victim-blaming”; at the same time, we actively advocate for legal reform regarding sexual offenses to reduce the harm victims suffer while seeking justice.
Supporter Voices
Petition Updates
Share this petition
Petition created on 16 July 2026