HONG KONG SHOWS THE WAY

Not only was a wrongful conviction promptly reversed but the false accuser got a hefty fine which was paid to the accused. That is so much more just than other jurisdictions that it is almost like another planet

A domestic helper from Sri Lanka, who spent 19 days in custody after being arrested and falsely accused of theft, saw justice done Tuesday when the Court of Appeal upheld the conviction of her former employer for malicious prosecution. Cheung Kwan-fong was appealing against her conviction in December 2004 on a charge of malicious prosecution.

But vice-president of the High Court, Anthony Rogers, said that the principal ground for her appeal was ``just nonsense'' and he dismissed it without requiring the domestic helper to respond. Godagan Deniyalage Prema C was charged with stealing her former employer's sandals on March 31, 2002 and sentenced to three months' jail. However, it was later disclosed that Cheung had three months earlier falsely accused the maid of stealing a pair of earrings. That accusation was brought to the attention of the court and, on February 19, 2003, Deputy High Court Judge Michael McMahon quashed Godagan's conviction after ruling that it was unsafe.

Last December, District Court Judge Gerard Muttrie ruled Cheung had given false evidence against Godagan, and convicted her of malicious prosecution. The judge awarded Godagan HK$240,370. Muttrie found it was Godagan, in fact, who had contacted the police to help retrieve her luggage and her passport from her employment agency, Casa Care, which was holding on to her belongings after her employer had accused her of theft. ``The last thing she would want, if she had a pair of stolen sandals in her luggage, would be for the police to be there when she collected it,'' Muttrie said at the time.

Cheung had initially told police Godagan was wearing a pair of earrings she had stolen from her. She later conceded the earrings were a gift for good performance, but that she wanted them returned. However, the case was dropped when a police officer explained to Cheung that this could not be construed as theft.

Cheung's counsel Tuesday argued that the initial prosecution was reasonable, that there were still doubts as to Godagan's credibility and that her conviction had only been set aside on a technicality.

But High Court Judge Aarif Barma said the findings against Godagan were made without the disclosure of evidence from the team of police officers who knew that Cheung had made other claims of theft against her three months earlier. Rogers said it was quite clear it was a wrongful conviction. He also found Muttrie to have ``applied good common sense'' and made ``a good, robust judgment.''

``The simple fact is, the judge came to the conclusion that [the employer] had given the sandals to the [domestic helper],'' said Rogers. ``Has anyone ever done a Cinderella test to see whose feet these wretched sandals fit?'' Cheung's counsel replied that, incidentally, they did not fit the Sri Lankan. ``Well then, why would anyone steal sandals that don't even fit?'' said High Court Judge William Waung. He added, ``There goes your case.''


Report here


(And don't forget your ration of Wicked Thoughts for today)