案件基本情況是什麼？

32歲無業男子盧彥銘被控於2023年10月30日在紅磡家維邨家義樓1樓後樓梯間強姦一名32歲已婚女子X。兩人透過交友App「Heymandi」認識，當日首次見面，被告邀請事主吸食大麻，途中拖手、攬腰、親吻，後在樓梯間發生性行為。

陪審團為什麼裁定強姦罪不成立？

陪審團（4男3女）退庭商議約5小時後，一致裁定罪名不成立。辯方主張性行為是自願，事主可能因其他動機（如援交未收錢）而報案。法庭認為控方未能證明超出合理懷疑被告知悉事主不同意。辯方成功製造合理懷疑：兩人見面前已有親密互動、聊天記錄曖昧、閉路電視顯示自願牽手親吻，加上被告離開時未取走女方財物，難以證明強姦意圖。「援交未付款懷恨報警」雖無直接證據，但足以讓陪審團產生懷疑。

被告有沒有被定罪其他罪行？

沒有。本案只控一項強姦罪，裁定不成立後被告完全無罪釋放。

為什麼法官批准被告用公帑支付訟費？

法官認為被告在調查期間沒有自招嫌疑或誤導控方，符合訟費申請條件。控方不反對，法庭批准以公帑支付被告全部法律費用。

事主X的證供是什麼？

事主以視像作供，指被告突然強吻、摸胸摸私處，她叫「唔好」但不果，被強姦5–6下後被告稱「返去拎大麻」離開。她感到委屈緊張，立即報警。

被告的辯解是什麼？

被告承認有性交，但稱事主自願。他被捕時對警員說「條女自願同我扑嘢」。辯方指事主可能從事援交但未收錢，屬「處理不當」而非強姦。

控方／女事主反駁論點有那些?

女事主X堅決否認任何援交協議，強調當日只是因好奇吸大麻而見面。她指被告突然強吻、摸胸摸私處，她多次說「唔好」但不果，被強行拖到梯間強姦。對於「下面好臭」一事，女事主否認，認為是被告事後捏造。控方強調：即使有親密行為，也不等於同意性交；被告中途離開取套的說法不合理（現場已有機會付款卻沒付）。

辯方主要論點有那些？

雙方透過Heymandi已協議援交辯方稱兩人在App上談好以500港元進行性交易，當日見面屬「交易約會」。支持證據：兩人聊天記錄顯示親密對話、討論見面吸大麻，但無明確金錢證據。

案件有沒有涉及大麻？

有。被告以「smoke嘢」（吸大麻）為由約事主見面，但事主獲豁免起訴相關毒品罪行。

法庭有沒有播放證據？

有。控方播放閉路電視，顯示兩人案發前在街上相擁。

為什麼陪審團一致裁定不成立？

陪審團可能認為證據不足以證明被告「明知或罔顧」事主不同意，尤其兩人見面前有親密行為，且被告中途離開取安全套／大麻。

被告釋放後有什麼後續？

被告當庭釋放，與律師團隊合照。案件結束，無上訴跡象。公帑支付訟費引發社會討論，但屬法庭酌情權。

此案有什麼值得男士留意?

此案提醒性行為必須有明確同意，任何懷疑都可能引發嚴重後果。

無業漢梯間被告強姦已婚私處惡臭援交女陪審團一致裁定罪名不成立官下令公帤支付訟費

32-year-old unemployed man Lu Yanming was charged with [illegible] on October 30, 2023, in Hung Hom.Jiawei VillageA 32-year-old married woman, X, was raped on the back staircase of the first floor of Jia Yi Building. The case (HCCC361/2024) was tried for several days by a High Court jury. After deliberation, the jury unanimously found the defendant guilty.rapeThe case was dismissed. The judge subsequently granted the defendant's application for legal costs, allowing the court to use public funds to cover all of his legal expenses.

Key points of the case

Female victim X throughDating appsHeymandi knew the defendant and, due to a bad mood and curiosity, agreed to meet the defendant that day to "smoke something together" (use drugs).marijuanaThe two met at Ho Man Tin MTR station at around 6 p.m.

CCTV footage showed that the defendant took X's hand immediately upon meeting her, and although X was surprised, she did not refuse. On the way to Jiawei Village, the defendant repeatedly put his arm around X's waist and lightly kissed X's cheek. X said that because she suspected the defendant had used marijuana and his emotions were "aggravated," she did not particularly resist and let things take their course.

arrivalJiawei VillageAfterwards, the defendant claimed he wanted to smoke marijuana on the back stairs and took X there. However, upon reaching the stairwell, the defendant suddenly forcibly hugged X and kissed her mouth, face, and neck wildly. He then reached inside her shirt and groped her breasts through her bra, and then reached inside her skirt and pants and touched her genitals through her underwear. X repeatedly said "no" and tried to push the defendant away, but to no avail.

The defendant then pushed X against the wall, pulled up her skirt and underwear, ignored her cries of "No!", and directly inserted his penis into her vagina through her pant leg, thrusting in and out about 6 to 7 times without using a condom. After finishing, the defendant said, "I'm going back to get some marijuana," and left.

X described feeling extremely wronged, nervous, and helpless at the time. After tidying her clothes, she immediately went to the lobby to find security, tearfully recounting, "He raped me on the back stairs," and demanding that the police be called. She later discovered that the defendant had deleted all content related to both of them.TelegramConversation log.

Defense version

The defense argued that the female victim, X, was actually engaged in compensated dating, and that the two had already agreed upon a sexual transaction at Heymandi for HK$500. The defense claimed that in the stairwell, X initiated kissing, masturbating, and performing oral sex on the defendant, and subsequently voluntarily removed her skirt and trousers for unprotected sex. The defendant then smelled X's...The genitals emitted a foul odor, to X, you belowIt smells awfulHe needed to go home to get condoms to protect both of them, and in his haste to leave, he didn't pay for them. The woman, harboring resentment, falsely accused him of rape.
When the defendant gave his statement, he said, "Hey, sir, that woman voluntarily went to bed with me." The female victim, X, firmly denied all allegations of prostitution and accused the defense of slander.

After deliberation, the jury unanimously found the defendant not guilty of rape. The defendant was released immediately without entering a plea.

Key evidence

The court played multiple CCTV footage clips from Ho Man Tin Station to Ka Wai Tsuen, showing the two engaging in intimate behaviors such as holding hands, putting their arms around each other's waists, hugging, and kissing.
X explained that these actions were only due to the defendant's heightened emotions after suspected marijuana use, and that she did not strongly resist at the time, but emphasized that this did not mean she consented to the subsequent sexual activity.
There were no third-party eyewitnesses at the scene, nor was there any DNA or other scientific evidence presented in court.

Legal Analysis

This case involves rape under Section 118 of the Hong Kong Crimes Ordinance (Cap. 200). Under this ordinance, a man is guilty of rape if he meets the following criteria: (a) he has unlawful sexual intercourse with a woman; (b) the woman did not consent; and (c) he knew the woman did not consent, or acted regardless of her consent. A conviction carries a life sentence, but in this case, the defendant was unanimously acquitted by the jury.

The concept of consentConsent must be free, voluntary, and continuous. Hong Kong law emphasizes that the prosecution must prove the victim lacked consent, not the defendant's. The victim, X, repeatedly verbally refused and attempted to push the defendant away, which the prosecution used to argue a lack of consent. However, the defense questioned whether there was truly no consent by having the victim admit to complying with intimate behavior during the encounter. Hong Kong law recognizes "honest but mistaken belief in consent," meaning that if the defendant reasonably believed consent was given, they can be exempt from liability, even if it was a mistake. Closed-circuit television footage showing intimate interactions could lead the jury to have reasonable doubt about consent, resulting in an acquittal.
Burden of proof and standardsIn criminal trials, the prosecution bears the burden of proof and must prove more than a reasonable doubt.beyond reasonable doubt() prove all elements of the crime, including lack of consent and the defendant's intent ()mens reaThis case lacks physical evidence (such as condoms or...).DNARelying solely on the victim's testimony and CCTV footage, the victim, under cross-examination by the defense, denied engaging in prostitution but admitted to partial compliance, potentially creating inconsistencies in her testimony. If the jury has any reasonable doubt about the prosecution's case, they must acquit the defendant; this is a principle of Hong Kong's criminal justice system that protects the rights of the accused.
Common reasons for acquittalIn Hong Kong rape cases, acquittals often occur due to insufficient evidence, issues of witness credibility, or disputes over consent. In this case, the defense's version of events included allegations of prostitution, which were denied, but this may have been enough to sow seeds of doubt in the jury's mind. Recent discussions in Hong Kong regarding reforms to sexual offenses legislation include introducing the principle of "affirmative consent" to explicitly require active consent rather than tacit consent; however, current legislation still primarily relies on proving a lack of consent. Similar cases demonstrate that trials based solely on oral testimony are often insufficient to reach a conviction, highlighting the challenges of investigating sexual offenses.

Ruling

After deliberation, the jury unanimously found the defendant not guilty of rape. The defendant was released immediately and did not need to enter a plea on any other matters. The judge granted the defendant's request for legal costs, all of which were to be paid by public funds.

Case NumberHCCC361/2024

13 FAQs about Lu Yanming's rape case

What are the basic facts of the case?

32-year-old unemployed man Lu Yanming is accused of raping a 32-year-old married woman, X, on October 30, 2023, in the stairwell on the first floor of Ka Yee House, Ka Wai Tsuen, Hung Hom. The two met through the dating app "Heymandi" and met for the first time on the day of their meeting. The defendant invited the victim to smoke marijuana, and during the meeting, they held hands, put their arms around each other's waists, and kissed. They then had sexual intercourse in the stairwell.
Why did the jury find the rape charge not guilty?

After deliberating for approximately five hours, the jury (4 men and 3 women) unanimously acquitted the defendants. The defense argued that the sexual activity was consensual and that the victim may have filed the report for other motives (such as not receiving payment for prostitution). The court held that the prosecution failed to demonstrate, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the victim was informed of her lack of consent.
The defense successfully created reasonable doubt: the two had already interacted intimately before meeting, their chat history was ambiguous, CCTV footage showed them holding hands and kissing voluntarily, and the defendant did not take the woman's belongings when he left, making it difficult to prove that he intended to rape her.
Although there is no direct evidence that "the victim of a prostitution ringleaded a police report out of resentment over unpaid fees," it is enough to raise suspicions on the part of the jury.
Has the defendant been convicted of any other crimes?

No. This case involved only one charge of rape, which was dismissed, and the defendant was acquitted.
Why did the judge approve the defendant's use of public funds to pay the litigation costs?

The judge held that the defendant had not incriminated himself or misled the prosecution during the investigation, and therefore met the requirements for applying for legal costs. The prosecution did not object, and the court approved the use of public funds to cover all of the defendant's legal costs.
What is the testimony of the victim X?

The victim testified via video, stating that the defendant suddenly kissed her, touched her breasts and genitals, and when she cried out "No!" to no avail, she was raped 5-6 times before the defendant said he was "going back to get marijuana" and left. Feeling wronged and nervous, she immediately called the police.
What is the defendant's defense?

The defendant admitted to sexual intercourse but claimed the victim was willing. When arrested, he told officers, "The woman willingly had sex with me." The defense argued that the victim may have been involved in compensated dating but did not receive payment, constituting "mishandling" rather than rape.
What are the prosecution's/female plaintiff's counterarguments?

The female victim, X, firmly denied any escort agreement, emphasizing that she only met the man out of curiosity about smoking marijuana.
She said the defendant suddenly kissed her, touched her breasts and private parts, and she said "no" many times but to no avail. She was then forcibly dragged to the stairwell and raped.
The woman denied the "smelly down there" claim, believing it was fabricated by the defendant afterward.
The prosecution emphasized that even intimate behavior does not equate to consent to sexual intercourse; the defendant's claim that he left midway to retrieve a condom is unreasonable (he had the opportunity to pay on the spot but did not).
The main arguments of the defenseWhat are they?

Both parties have reached an agreement on the escort service through Heymandi.
The defense argued that the two had agreed on a HK$500 sexual transaction via an app, and that their meeting that day constituted a "transactional date."
Supporting evidence: The chat logs between the two show intimate conversations and discussions about meeting to smoke marijuana, but there is no clear evidence of money involved.
Does the case involve marijuana?

Yes. The defendant arranged to meet the victim under the pretext of "smoke" (using marijuana), but the victim was granted immunity from prosecution for the related drug offenses.
Did the court play any evidence?

Yes. The prosecution played CCTV footage showing the two embracing on the street before the incident.
Why did the jury unanimously find the case invalid?

The jury may find the evidence insufficient to prove that the defendant "knowingly or disregarded" the victim's consent, especially given the intimate behavior between the two before the meeting and the defendant's departure to retrieve a condom/marijuana.
What happened after the defendant was released?

The defendant was released in court and posed for a photo with his legal team. The case is now closed, with no indication of appeal. The use of public funds to pay legal costs has sparked public debate, but this falls under the court's discretion.
What aspects of this case should men pay attention to?

This case serves as a reminder that sexual activity must involve explicit consent, and any doubt can have serious consequences.