Court looks into credibility of testimonies and evidence
A District Court in Hong Kong recently dealt with a case involving allegations of sexual abuse by a domestic worker against her employer.
The case brought to light serious claims of misconduct within a household employment setting, raising questions about workplace safety and the vulnerabilities of domestic workers.
These included claims of inappropriate touching during a pre-employment medical examination, forced sexual acts during daily massages, and other forms of sexual abuse.
The worker alleged that these incidents occurred over several months, creating a hostile and abusive work environment.
The worker, a domestic helper from the Philippines, had accused her elderly employer, a retired doctor, of various forms of sexual abuse during her employment from September 2018 to August 2019.
The allegations included inappropriate touching during a pre-employment medical examination, forced sexual acts during daily massages, and other indecent acts.
The employer denied all allegations, claiming that any physical contact was part of legitimate medical examinations or consensual activities. He argued that the worker's claims were fabricated and motivated by financial gain.
The case had previously gone through criminal proceedings, resulting in the employer's acquittal. The current civil case was the worker's attempt to seek compensation for the alleged abuse.
The worker claimed that the alleged sexual abuses began with a "body check assault" on 11 September 2018. She alleged that the employer conducted an inappropriate physical examination.
The worker also claimed that from early November 2018 to the end of March 2019, she was forced to perform sexual massages on the employer, which included various indecent acts.
Additionally, the worker alleged that from late November 2018 to April 2019, she was required to whip the employer as part of what she described as "masochistic sexual acts." She also claimed that in November 2018, the employer made her watch a video of another domestic helper performing sexual acts on him.
The employer, while admitting to conducting a pre-employment medical examination, denied any sexual misconduct. He claimed that the examination was a standard procedure and that he had obtained the worker's consent.
Regarding the massages, the employer stated that these were necessary due to his health conditions, including shoulder pain and skin issues.
The employer also denied the allegations of forced whipping, stating that any such activities were initiated by the worker and were related to weight control, not sexual pleasure. He categorically denied forcing the worker to watch any indecent videos.
The court examined the testimonies of both parties. The judge found numerous inconsistencies in the worker's account. For example, the court noted:
"[The worker's] narratives on how the Video Watching Incident happened are equally problematic. She started them on a wrong footing by claiming erroneously that she was made to watch one of the Scandal Videos, when her descriptions of the contents of the video she watched on that occasion totally differed from the contents of the Scandal Videos played at trial."
The employer's testimony also had inconsistencies, but to a lesser extent. The court found some of his explanations implausible, particularly regarding the purpose of certain physical examinations.
A crucial aspect of the case was the interpretation of video evidence. The worker had secretly recorded videos of the employer during massages, which she claimed supported her allegations. However, the court found that these videos did not clearly demonstrate the alleged sexual acts.
"Overall, none of the Massage Videos showed clearly the 1st to 3rd Sexual Demands being requested by, or being performed on, [the employer] as alleged by [the worker]."
The court emphasised that the burden of proof lay with the worker to prove her allegations on a balance of probabilities. Despite finding flaws in the employer's case, the judge concluded that these were not sufficient to overcome the significant problems in the worker's account.
The decision stated:
"Although I am not entirely convinced with the case and evidence of [the employer], I have far greater reservation as to [the worker's]. I do not find the problems with [the employer's] case could help [the worker] in overcoming the flaws in her case."
In dismissing the worker's claim, the court highlighted the importance of credible and consistent evidence in employment-related disputes.
The judge noted:
"With the burden of proof squarely on her shoulders, and on the balance of probabilities, I find against her on liability. Her claim against [the employer] is dismissed."
