A Hong Kong senior police inspector was sentenced to nine weeks in prison and fined HK$6,000 on Thursday after being convicted of common assault and indecent assault against a female colleague inside a police station earlier this year.
Kwun Tong Magistrates’ Court Magistrate Eric Yau Kwok-sun found the 56-year-old defendant, Liang Runcheng, guilty on both counts and criticized him for fabricating testimony during the trial. Yau emphasized that the officer’s actions—committing a crime while serving as law enforcement and abusing his senior rank to offend a subordinate—were aggravating factors in the severity of the sentence.
Liang, who served in the police force for 37 years, was granted HK$50,000 bail pending an appeal. As conditions of his release, he must surrender all travel documents, remain in Hong Kong, and report to a police station twice weekly.
Court Rejects Officer’s Account as Unbelievable
The charges stemmed from an incident on February 18, 2025, when Liang assaulted and indecently assaulted a woman identified only as X inside Room 103 of the Hung Hom Police Station. According to the prosecution, Liang had hugged X and touched her buttocks.
During the verdict, Magistrate Yau meticulously dissected the defendant’s testimony, describing it as fundamentally unreliable. Liang had claimed in court that he instructed X to hold her hands palms-up in the air to demonstrate case classification categories, and that she moved her hands in response.
Magistrate Yau noted that this detailed explanation was never mentioned in the defendant’s recorded interview the day after the incident, nor was it raised by the defense during the cross-examination of X. He concluded that Liang had “temporarily inserted” this sequence of events, finding it “impossible to believe.”
The court also dismissed Liang’s attempt to explain away inconsistencies, including his belated claim that he had “forgotten” to mention an action involving counting exhibits with X during his initial statement. Furthermore, the magistrate found it illogical that Liang would need X to physically extend her hands to verbally explain the practicalities of police work, deeming his account “contrary to common sense.”
Abuse of Rank Cited as Key Factor in Sentencing
In the victim’s testimony, X stated she did not immediately report the incident to a superintendent present at the scene due to the suddenness of the event and shock. Magistrate Yau found X’s reaction understandable, rejecting the defense’s argument that her delayed, simplified report to family members was evidence of fabrication. He ruled that the defense had provided “no convincing reason” to suggest X was untruthful.
In sentencing, Magistrate Yau acknowledged Liang’s clean record, good family background, and long service to the police force. However, he strongly emphasized the breach of public trust, stressing that the crime occurred within a police station while the victim was on duty.
The magistrate set a starting point of eight weeks’ imprisonment for the indecent assault conviction. He added two weeks because the defendant, a police officer and an immediate superior to the victim, was guilty of “knowing the law yet breaking the law,” which constitutes a severe abuse of power. Citing Liang’s admission of guilt only after being convicted and the resultant destruction of his career and pension, one week was ultimately deducted, resulting in the final nine-week prison term.
Defense counsel argued in mitigation that Liang was a dedicated officer facing the loss of his long-service pension and a monthly salary of roughly HK$90,000. While the defense admitted Liang could not claim remorse after fighting the charges to conviction, they pleaded with the court to consider his excellent background for a lighter penalty. The court determined that detention was the only appropriate option.
The case underscores the high standard of conduct expected from law enforcement officers and the serious consequences for abusing authority within professional settings.
Leave a Reply