WHEN a judge chooses to comment on public morality, he should pick his words carefully. Mr Justice Duffy's decision to hand down only a suspended sentence on a man who unlawfully had sexual intercourse with a girl of 13 may or may not have been justified by the individual circumstances of the case. Whatever the lifestyle of the girl herself, many would say the sentence was too lenient for the gravity of the offence. But what is certain is that this particular case cannot justify his comment that while unlawful sexual intercourse with a minor should be regarded as a serious matter, it was ''obviously not regarded as such by the 13 and 14-year-olds of this world''.
Does Mr Justice Duffy imagine this girl, who was high on pep-pills and LSD, is representative of the average child of her age? Does the use of drugs automatically prove a child is sexually promiscuous? There may indeed be many girls who are sexually active at below the legal age of consent. That does not however justify such a sweeping comment on the sexuality of all teenage girls in conservative Hong Kong.
Mr Justice Duffy should have in mind the legal adage that difficult cases make bad law, and remember that teenage ''hard cases'' are not the best examples from which to draw conclusions about other children their age.
He should also bear in mind the findings of a survey published on the day he made the remark in the supposedly freewheeling United States. There it was found that only 30 per cent of 15-year-olds were sexually experienced; and that 60 per cent of girls who had had sex before the age of 15 said they were coerced into it, often by a much older man.
What some underage girls may get up to may not strike Mr Justice Duffy as serious. But he should not assume that the girls themselves regard it with similar equanimity. The law prohibits under age sex for a reason. It is unbecoming for a judge to treat the law so lightly.
