When the Security Bureau unveiled its proposed reforms of the sexual offense laws on June 29, it was clear it meant business. No less than 37 new offenses were envisaged, eight of which were child-related. After a one-month consultation period, it was announced that over 90 percent of the more than 6,000 public responses supported the proposals.

However, as child rights groups, legal bodies, and victims pointed out, there was a glaring omission in the package. There was no mention of a law criminalizing the persistent sexual abuse of a child (PCSA). The need for such a law had been apparent since at least 1999, when the Court of Appeal reviewed the legal position (HKSAR vs Chim Hon-man).

The court ruled that prosecutors could not rely on sample charges in multiple incest, rape, or sexual cases where the offenses were alleged to have occurred over a protracted period, and the complainant was unable to identify specific allegations with particularity.

The ruling inevitably made it more difficult for prosecutors to hold persistent child sexual abusers to account, and highlighted the vulnerability of victims. To overcome the problem, other jurisdictions — notably states in Australia, including New South Wales — have modernized their laws. In doing so, the view was taken that if prosecutors can establish a course of conduct involving child sexual abuse, a defendant can be convicted if at least two episodes have been proved. In other words, the entirety of the conduct must be considered, not simply individual incidents.

To its credit, the Department of Justice (DOJ) appreciated the challenge posed by the court’s ruling and the need for remedial action. Responding with alacrity, it issued a paper in 2000 advocating a PCSA offense. It recognized that it was unrealistic to expect a child to remember the exact dates and times of incidents that had occurred over a long period.

In the absence of a tailor-made law to protect children from this offense, too many abusers have taken advantage of the weaknesses in child protections and evaded their just deserts. Once a PCSA law is on the statute book, future generations will enjoy the protections denied to many of their forebears. The government’s duty could not be clearer, and the time is ripe

Thus, the DOJ’s paper indicated that the focus should be on ascertaining the truth, not on confusing the child with obsessive specificity. It concluded that “Children need and deserve particular protection in the field of sexual relations because they are physically and emotionally dependent and not yet psychologically mature”.

Although this was incontrovertible, the DOJ’s proposal did not receive the backing it deserved. There were those in legal circles who argued that in the absence of particularity a defendant’s right to a fair trial might be compromised, and the proposal was shelved. In consequence, the courts often find it easier to convict defendants of sexually abusing a child on a single occasion than they do when they are charged with multiple offenses, which cannot be right.

A leading campaigner for a PCSA law is Taura Edgar, the founder of TALK Hong Kong and herself a victim of persistent child sexual abuse. As she explained in April, the object of a PCSA law is to “help children who have been abused multiple times, probably over quite a period, so that they only have to testify about the first, last, and maybe some in-between points, instead of the system we have now, that asks them to remember each one in great detail very specifically”. Although not a lawyer, her analysis cannot be faulted, and voices such as hers deserve to be heard.

Nobody is suggesting that a defendant’s fair trial guarantees should be relaxed or that guilt should not be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. However, there are more ways than one of achieving just outcomes, particularly when children are the victims. If this involves innovative approaches, so be it.

The absence of a PCSA law means there is a significant lacuna in child protection that must be addressed in the current exercise (which could be the last opportunity for many years). It is, therefore, fortunate that the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region has a listening government. On Aug 7, the secretary for security, Chris Tang Ping-keung, said the public’s views concerning the introduction of a PCSA offense had been noted, and his bureau would now liaise with stakeholders.

Tang singled out the Hong Kong Bar Association for particular mention, saying it had “largely agreed” to the creation of a PCSA offense. Although there are undoubtedly still some opponents to reform, capable of conjuring up superficially attractive objections, the government must stay focused and do what is necessary to maximize child protection. A PCSA law should be incorporated into the package it will submit shortly to the Legislative Council, with a view to enactment by June 30, 2027.

Once this is done, the legislators should be under no illusions as to the enormity of the situation. The barrister, Azan Marwah, who chairs the Hong Kong Committee on Children’s Rights, hit the nail on the head recently when he described persistent child sexual abuse as being “among the worst atrocities that can be committed upon a child”.

In the absence of a tailor-made law to protect children from this offense, too many abusers have taken advantage of the weaknesses in child protections and evaded their just deserts. Once a PCSA law is on the statute book, future generations will enjoy the protections denied to many of their forebears. The government’s duty could not be clearer, and the time is ripe.

The author is a senior counsel and law professor, an honorary consultant to the Child Protection Institute of Against Child Abuse, and was previously the director of public prosecutions of the Hong Kong Special Administrative Region.

The views do not necessarily reflect those of China Daily.