Sexual offences reform: Why Hong Kong needs a law against persistent child abuse

By Azan Aziz Marwah, Hong Kong Committee on Children’s Rights The long-awaited reform of sexual offences is back on the agenda after the government launched its (brief) one-month public consultation on July 7. The consultation covers a wide range of proposals tackling the inadequacies and outdated language of the Crimes Ordinance. File photo: Kyle Lam/HKFP.

The proposed improvements to the law include a clear definition of consent, gender neutrality, a new offence of grooming, and more deterrent sentences. It rightly addresses many long-standing gaps. We are also relieved to see the importance put in the proposals on protecting the vulnerable, such as children and people with mental impairments.

However, there are important deficiencies that go unaddressed in the new law. See also: Hong Kong moves to reform its archaic sex laws, but victims of prolonged child sexual abuse feel left out The authorities should follow other jurisdictions and introduce a new offence of Persistent Child Sexual Abuse (PCSA). Under the current regime, if sexual abuse continues for years or decades (e.

g. in-family sexual abuse), the prosecution must prosecute each incident separately. As has been shown time and again, this leaves the most traumatised children without any recourse.

Persistent child sexual abuse is among the worst atrocities that can be committed upon a child. The nightmare forces the child to relive the trauma, melting the memories into one. Furthermore, child victims’ mental and cognitive development is not yet mature.

When faced with prolonged, persistent, and repetitive sexual abuse, they are less likely to be able to identify the unique details of each incident (e.g. time, clothing) to meet the requirements for prosecution.

It is absurd that a court can be certain that a child has been sexually abused and sure of who the perpetrator was but unable to convict. Why? Precisely because the abuse did not occur once, but many times.

That is not justice. Lady Justice statue at