Criminal Law 

Sexual offences are notoriously difficult to defend as they often involve the complainant’s words against the defendant’s; whether a touch is intentionally indecent or accidental can be a matter of interpretation and context. In HKSAR v. Faizal Solomona Penesa, ESCC 93/2026, Randy Shek successfully defended a professional Hong Kong China Rugby player against a charge of Indecent Assault, which was substituted with a conviction for Common Assault on his own plea. The defendant’s sentence was subsequently further reduced on a successful review application to the Court under section 104 of the Magistrates Ordinance, Cap. 227. 

The defendant first faced allegation of indecent assault when he approached to initiate conversation with a female patron in a Lan Kwai Fong bar. The complainant alleged that the defendant had placed his hand on her waist then slipped his hand down to her buttocks. After his arrest, the defendant then committed a further offence of criminal damage to a police cell door whilst in custody. 

The defendant pleaded guilty to Criminal Damage and offered a guilty plea to Common Assault in lieu of Indecent Assault. The Prosecution refused the plea bargain and the matter proceeded to trial with a renewed guilty plea to Common Assault entered at arraignment. In the ensuing trial, both the complainant and eye-witness’s testimonial accounts of the location and nature of the contact, the defendant’s demeanour, and subsequent events were vigorously cross-examined against CCTV footage and their earlier police statements.

In finding the defendant not guilty of Indecent Assault, the Court found the witnesses’ accounts to be not credible. It further accepted that any contact with the complainant’s buttocks could have been resulted from the complainant’s own movement and that there was no indecent intention on the defendant’s part. The defendant was therefore acquitted of Indecent Assault and convicted of Common Assault on the plea he had consistently offered. The defendant was then sentenced to a fine of $6,000 for each of the two offences, to the aggregate amount of $12,000. 

Subsequent to the sentence, the defendant applied to review the sentences under section 104 of the Magistrates Ordinance, Cap.227, also represented by Randy. The Court was invited to reconsider the sentence particularly in light of the sentencing principles of retribution and rehabilitation under R v. Sargeant [1975] 60 Cr App R 74. It was submitted on behalf of the defendant that while the Court should disregard the operation of the Rehabilitation of Offenders Ordinance, Cap. 297 in the sentencing process, a reduction of the fine for each of the two offences to $5,000 would be consistent with the common law sentencing principles under Sargeant while imposing a sentence commensurate with the defendant’s offending.

The Court accepted Randy’s submissions and reduced the total fine to $10,000, noting that the circumstances of the offences could afford the defendant a chance at rehabilitation. This reduction meant that the Defendant’s convictions would be considered as spent under the Rehabilitation of Offenders Ordinance, Cap. 297 in due course. 

Randy Shek was instructed by Messrs. Howse Williams to represent the Defendant.

Press links: 
The Witness :  https://thewitnesshk.com/欖球港隊代表非禮罪脫-普通襲擊刑毀罪成判罰款-官/
South China Morning Post: https://www.scmp.com/news/hong-kong/law-and-crime/article/3360813/bar-security-footage-helps-clear-hong-kong-rugby-player-molestation-charge
Sing Tao Daily:  https://www.stheadline.com/society/3606010/ 薩摩亞籍欖球運動員觸碰女子臀部及損壞警署門閂-覆核刑罰獲批-下調罰款至1萬元  

Randy Shek

“Randy is a highly experienced counsel in the criminal law practice. He offers pragmatic and robust advice to clients and achieves favourable outcomes for them.”
— Legal 500 Asia-Pacific 2023-2026: Regulatory, Investigations and Crime: Leading Juniors 

Randy’s main areas of practice include criminal law, human rights and civil liberties, and public law.  He also accepts instructions for civil cases involving injunctions, family law, and land law.

While he regularly receives instructions to prosecute on behalf of the Department of Justice, Randy is mainly a criminal defence counsel. Randy has a long and established track record for defending cases arising from high profile public order events and cases involving human rights and civil liberties dimensions. He is also particularly experienced in handling cases involving young offenders.

Moreover, he is also experienced in handling conventional crime, white collar crime, SFC investigations, and serious crime, including sexual offences and murder.  He has conducted trials and appeals in all court levels, both as led junior and on his own right.

Find out more from Randy’s profile.

This article was first published on 27 August 2026.

Disclaimer: This article does not constitute legal advice and seeks to set out the general principles of the law. Detailed advice should therefore be sought from a legal professional relating to the individual merits and facts of a particular case. The photographs which appear in this article are included for decorative purposes only and should not be taken as a depiction of any matter to which the case is related. The views and opinions expressed in this article/material are solely those of the members authoring it and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of Denis Chang’s Chambers, or of any other member or members of Denis Chang’s Chambers.