The Court of Appeal has upheld the prison sentence of less than two years imposed on a former Cabinet Minister and Member of Parliament convicted of indecent assault and strangulation.
Hui was jailed earlier this year after facing four charges, including three involving alleged sexual violence and one count of violence.
The former Cabinet Minister’s effective prison term is 15 months after the Court ordered his sentences to be served concurrently. He was sentenced to 24 months’ imprisonment for indecent assault, with the final nine months suspended, leaving 15 months to be served.
A further six-month sentence for strangulation will be served at the same time and does not add to the overall term.
The Crown alleged that in February 2023 he threw a chair at the complainant during an argument, and that in June 2023 he indecently assaulted her by touching her breasts for several minutes while she resisted and protested, during which he also strangled her.
An additional allegation of attempted indecent assault in July 2023 resulted in an acquittal.
Following a judge-alone trial, Justice Garlick convicted Hui on two counts of indecent assault and one count of common assault involving strangulation stemming from the June 2023 incident.
He was acquitted on the remaining charges.
Hui appealed Justice Garlick’s verdicts, arguing that the judge had erred in his assessment of consent. The Court of Appeal rejected that claim, finding the trial judge had properly explained why he accepted the complainant’s evidence on one incident while holding reasonable doubt on another.
He also challenged the sentence as manifestly excessive, pointing to his previous good character, his service as a Member of Parliament and Cabinet Minister, and his poor health following a stroke.
The appellate Justices Randerson, White and Dalton did find that the sentencing judge erred in treating Hui’s decision to go to trial as an aggravating factor, emphasising that a defendant’s exercise of the right to trial — even where it requires a complainant to give evidence — cannot lawfully be held against them.
However, the judges concluded that the sentence imposed remained appropriate despite that error.
The Court of Appeal ultimately dismissed both the appeal against conviction and the appeal against sentence.
