Masseur’s ‘bizarre’ claim over abuse

A masseur’s “bizarre explanation” has been rejected in court after he admitted to sexually abusing six women.

Weiqing Liu, 35, returned before the ACT Court of Appeal this month after prosecutors disputed an earlier judge’s ruling that he could not find the offending was sexually-motivated.

The court was told Liu, a traditional Chinese massage therapist, pleaded guilty to three charges of rape and five charges of committing an act of indecency without consent in February last year.

He was working at his wife’s cousin’s clinic, The Capital Health Centre of Traditional Chinese Medicine in Phillip, when he sexually abused six clients over a 23-month period between 2020 and 2021.

At a plea hearing, Liu explained away the abuse by claiming he thought providing sexual services “might prove lucrative” and lead to further referrals.

He claimed he was motivated by a “misguided understanding that by providing sexual services he may improve his earning capacity and hence address the difficult financial situation he was facing”.

He was jailed for 16 months and ordered to be of good behaviour when released after Justice Michael Mossop found he could not reach a conclusion about Liu’s motivation.

But on August 1, Liu’s jail time was doubled in the Court of Appeal after two of three judges ruled the “only reasonable inference” was the offending was sexually motivated.

“The sentencing judge was not satisfied on the balance of probabilities of the offender’s bizarre explanation … might prove lucrative,” Chief Justice Lucy McCallum and Justice Louise Taylor wrote.

“In our assessment, there can be no uncertainty about the offender’s motivation.”

The two judges instead imposed a total effective sentence of five years, five months and 20 days with a non-parole period of three years.

In a dissent, Justice Chrissa Loukas-Karlsson wrote that she would have dismissed the appeal.

She found the evidence did not satisfy her beyond reasonable doubt the offending was sexually motivated, and while “undoubtedly lenient” the sentence was not inadequate.