Judge says testimonies inconsistent: Employer not guilty of indecent assault

Shatin Law Courts Building

SAYING the testimonies and evidence given by witnesses were inconsistent, a Sha Tin Magistrates’ Courts judge acquitted an employer who was accused by a Filipino helper of indecently assaulting her on two occasions.

Magistrate Colin Wong Sze-cheung on Thursday said he was “unable to reconcile the different versions” in the testimony of prosecution witnesses to convict Ong C.K. of indecent assault.

Judge Wong noted that the testimony of first prosecution witness, a 24-year-old Filipino domestic helper, given in court was different from the versions that she gave in her police statement as well as the testimony of a staff member of her employment agency.

The prosecution presented the agency employee to corroborate the first witness’ evidence of telling the employment agency about the two incidents of indecent assault.

However, the employment agency  staff said  the Filipino helper only complained about the second incident, which allegedly took place on May 9, 2016.

The magistrate added  he also did not find as credible the testimony of second prosecution witness, another Filipina who also worked for the defendant as a domestic helper, who recounted an incident where the defendant allegedly asked her to massage his private part, echoing the evidence given by the first prosecution witness.

“I have also considered the background of (the first two prosecution witnesses being foreign domestic workers in Hong Kong, and (who were afraid) of losing their job, and (being) less educated, I am unable to reconcile the different versions (of these testimonies),” Judge Wong said.

On February 8, the first prosecution witness, who was only identified in court as Miss X,  gave evidence, recounting the two alleged incidents of indecent assault committed by her former employer.

The first incident, she said,  took place on April 30, 2016 or just the third day after she started working for Ong’s family on April 28, 2016.

At around 3 p.m. while the helper was doing the dishes, her male employer asked her if there was anyone else in the house, and she said that there were just the two of them.

The defendant allegedly went to his study room in the house’s fourth floor and buzzed the intercom to ask the witness to bring lemon tea to him.

After bringing the tea to her boss, he then asked her if she could give him a massage. She agreed and then he sat on the massage chair. But after agreeing to massage his shoulder and his feet, the defendant allegedly stood up, took off his shorts, grabbed her wrists and placed them on his private part.

“I was shocked and wondered why he took off his shorts,” the witness said through an interpreter.

“Massage it,” Ong allegedly then told the helper.

She added that she could feel his private parts as the fabric of his underwear was “flimsy”.

The helper then said she would not do it because what he was asking her to do was “sexual harassment” in the Philippines.

The employer allegedly said that he would be willing to pay her $80 for the service as it was the same amount he usually paid when he had massages outside.

The witness said she took away her hands and then left the study room, telling the employer that she still had some things to do in the kitchen.

When the two other domestic helpers, a fellow Filipino and an Indonesian, arrived at the house with the defendant’s children, the witness told the other Filipino worker about the incident.

In their room, the witness also said that she told her employment agency about the incident by sending a message via WhatsApp. The following day, “a lady from the agency called, confirming if my message was true.”

The second incident, the witness said, happened on May 9, 2016, when she and the other Filipino helper were summoned by the employer to the study room.

In the room, they told him about the incident earlier in the morning when monkeys came to the garden and destroyed the plants. The employer then took his rifle and told them that he would teach them to shoot the monkeys.

The other Filipino helper told the employer that she knew how to use the rifle because her husband is a policeman in the Philippines.

The defendant then instructed Miss X how to hold the rifle, and told her to point the gun to the tree in the garden and pretend that it was a monkey. The witness said because she found the gun heavy, her arms would drop, so the employer stood behind her and helped her hold the gun.

While telling her how to pull the trigger she felt his hand fondle her breast.

“It took me by surprise. I felt harassed, violated so I put the rifle down,” she said after demonstrating to the court how she had held the rifle and how she was told to point the gun outside the window.

She and the other Filipino helper then told their employer that they still had some chores to finish downstairs.

The witness said she then again informed via WhatsApp the employment agency about the second incident.

“Sir did something to me. I’m afraid,” she told the agency.

Miss X added that she told the employment agency that her employer touched her breasts.

She said she was able to report the incidents to the Philippine Consulate after she got in touch with a leader of an OFW group who helped her.

Under cross-examination, the defendant’s lawyer said the witness, in applying for a domestic worker job in Hong Kong, had put in her application form that she was fond of giving massages. He noted that she had also taken up massage therapy courses.

Asked if she received payments when she had given massages in the Philippines, the witness said she was not as she had only done it for her family members.

“Were you aware that there are massage parlors in the Philippines, where sex services were offered?” the defense counsel said.

“I have heard about it. But from my experience, we massage the body but not the private parts,” she said.

The lawyer also suggested that it was her idea to massage her employer, but she denied this. He also noted that she comes from a poor family, and that she had to  work for the medical expenses of her father and brother. The witness agreed.

The lawyer added that Ong is a successful and wealthy man, and that it was a good opportunity for the helper to work in his employ.

He also questioned her about a statement she gave to the police which she signed but was written in Chinese. The defense noted that the statement did not mention anything about the employer asking her if there were other persons in the house when the alleged first incident of indecent assault took place.

The lawyer noted that in the statement, the helper  also said  about the second incident that she felt her employer touched her breast for five seconds, but in her evidence in court, she said the defendant touched her breast for two minutes.

“Bernadette was standing one meter and  a half  from you and the employer, when he touched your breast?”the lawyer said.

The witness admitted that after leaving the room, she and Bernadette did not talk about the incident.

Miss X, said the lawyer, reported the alleged incidents to the consulate on June 7, or nearly a month after the second incident happened.

On June 8, 2016, the defendant was arrested by the police. During the arrest, the defense said, the employer was “quite upset” and had asked “Bernadette”, the other Filipino helper, “why (is she) doing this?”

The employer, who is said to be suffering from a heart condition and has prostate cancer, allegedly told the other helper that she persuaded him to let them stay even when he had complained that both Miss X and Bernadette were not good cooks.

Bernadette also allegedly wrote a letter to their employer demanding compensation and that she convinced Miss X to file a complaint so they could get money from him and recover their expenses in coming to Hong Kong.