A judge at Singapore’s High Court on Friday ( Feb 14 ) overturned a woman’s conviction for abusing two domestic helpers at her home in Sentosa Cove in 2018.
Tan Lee Hoon, 60, fought the claims at a test in the district court, but he was found guilty of seven counts of deliberately injuring the two girls and was found innocent of one command.
District Judge Salina Ishak sentenced her to 10 months in prison and mandated that she pay compensation to each prey in January 2023.
Because of” large discrepancies” in the evidence, the prosecution claimed that the trial had not “proved its case beyond any reasonable fear.”
” Concordances in evidence and memories are expected. Memory is imperfect, and it is correct that the passage of time may weaken reminiscences”, he said.
The jury must be careful not to impose egotistical norms of recall. However, there must be some core of proof that convinces”.
Mdm Tan, who was accompanied by her family and close friends in judge, sobbed and appeared relieved following the ruling. She was reportedly alleged to have endured years of suffering during the event.
Through her attorney Derek Kang, who filed her charm with older lawyers N Sreenivasan, she stated in a statement that” I’ve always treated my domestic helpers well and wanted them to be happy.
” When these complaints were made, I had no idea why they had made these false accusations against me,” she said. I’m glad that justice has suddenly prevailed”.
Ms. Lizardo Joan Lozares and Jenefer Vegafria Arangotein were hired by Mdm Tan’s father in August 2018 to provide for the family at their house at 24 Paradise Island in Sentosa.
In September 2018, Mdm Tan was first found guilty of pinching Ms. Arangote’s arms, abdomen, chest, and knee, and of striking Ms. Lozares ‘ head with her hands and kicking her neck.
Justice Xu explained why he was able to take the district judge’s verdict and the prosecution’s claim that the disparities in evidence could not be overlooked.
He noted that there were contradictions in the circumstances surrounding the case against Mdm Tan, such as the frequency of force being used, how the harm was caused, the activities ‘ series, and the cause for the abuse.
These” could not in the environment of this situation be regarded as minor features.” They were the main points of the factual allegations that supported the accusations leveled against ( Mdm Tan ),” he said.
The timing of the first two charges against Mdm Tan, who allegedly kicked and hit Ms Lozares ‘ head with her hand, was an example of this contradiction.
Justice Xu noted that Ms. Lozares ‘ statements about whether these incidents occurred on the same day or more than a year off “went to the brain” of Mdm Tan’s case.
At test, Ms Lozares claimed that her officers speech, which stated that the acts occurred on the same day, was recorded unjustly.
Justice Xu claimed that this argument was insufficient because the police agent claimed that the officer had verified that she had taken the necessary steps, and that Ms. Lozares signed the assertion, demonstrating that she had accepted it as true.
He found discordant information in Ms. Lozares ‘ testimony regarding the alleged pain and the power of the blow’s power.
Ms. Lozares claimed in her police statement that she only experienced minor problems from the blow, but that she testified in a trial that she experienced the most severe pain imaginable, based on testimony made by Mdm Tan’s attorneys.
” Sometimes, facts do problem”, said Justice Xu, adding that these were essential elements of the complaints.
The prosecutor noted how frequently Ms. Arangote claimed that Mdm Tan had punched her as an example, which caused some contradictions in her claims.
Ms. Arangote claimed to have been pinched half on her right arm, but that she only previously told the defense. She therefore argued that the defense’s testimony at trial was accurate.
Mdm Tan’s attorneys had argued that it was “difficult to know” how Ms. Arangote’s memories may be clearer at test than in her speech to the police, which was more recent and in line with the alleged work.
Similar contradictions were noted in Ms. Arangote’s repeated claims that she had been pinched in the neck and hip.
Justice Xu noted that while some variation does be apparent, there was a significant difference and that the number of pinches were significant because it was the maid’s own negligence that caused the incident.
He likewise observed another disparities, such as in which quarter Ms Arangote’s finger was pinched, and whether Mdm Tan pinched her abdomen in the bedroom or living area.
Taken together, these discrepancies had the impact of weakening the arguments underlying Ms Arangote’s complaints, he said.
In comparison, Mdm Tan consistently denied causing any harm or abuse, and Justice Xu found that her information to be more reliable than that of the plaintiffs.
Anyone found guilty of voluntarily causing hurt can be punished with a jail term of up to three years, or fined up to S$ 5, 000 ( US$ 3, 700 ), or both.
The court does statement the criminal to one-and-a-half times the amount of punishment he or she would otherwise have been guilty in cases where the offender involves a home worker.