Judge overturns guilty verdict of woman accused of abusing 2 maids at Sentosa Cove

SINGAPORE: A High Court judge on Friday (Feb 14) overturned the guilty verdict of a woman who was accused of abusing two domestic helpers at her home in Sentosa Cove in 2018.

Tan Lee Hoon, 60, fought the allegations at a trial in the district courts but was convicted in December 2022 of seven charges of voluntarily causing hurt to the two maids, and acquitted of one charge.

In January 2023, District Judge Salina Ishak sentenced her to 10 months’ jail and ordered her to pay compensation to each victim.

Justice Aidan Xu @ Aedit Abdullah said the prosecution had not proven its case beyond any reasonable doubt because of “substantial inconsistencies” in the evidence.

“Inconsistencies in testimony and recollection are to be expected. Memory is fallible, and it is true that the passage of time will erode memories,” he said.

“The court must be careful not to require superhuman standards of recollection. Nonetheless, there must be some core of evidence that convinces.”

Mdm Tan, who was accompanied by her family and close friends in court, sobbed and looked relieved after the decision. She was heard saying she had suffered for many years during the case.

“I’ve always treated my domestic helpers well and wanted them to be happy,” she said in a statement through her lawyer Derek Kang, who fought her appeal with senior counsel N Sreenivasan.

“When these complaints were made, I could not understand why they had made these false allegations against me. I’m grateful that justice has finally prevailed.”

Mdm Tan’s husband employed Ms Lizardo Joan Lozares in October 2015 and Ms Jenefer Vegafria Arangotein August 2018 to work for the family at their home at 24 Paradise Island on Sentosa.

Mdm Tan was initially found guilty of pinching Ms Arangote’s arms, stomach, chest and thigh in September 2018, and hitting Ms Lozares’ head with her hand and kicking her chest in October 2018.

Justice Xu explained why he was unable to accept the district judge’s determination and the argument by the prosecution that the discrepancies in evidence could be overlooked.

He observed that in the case against Mdm Tan, there were inconsistencies in areas like the number of times force was used, how the hurt was caused, the sequence of events and the trigger for the abuse.

“These could not in the context of this case be regarded as minor aspects. They were central components of the factual assertions underlying the charges against (Mdm Tan),” he said.

One example of an inconsistency was the timing of the first two charges against Mdm Tan, for allegedly kicking Ms Lozares’ chest and hitting her head with her hand.

Justice Xu observed that Ms Lozares was inconsistent about whether these acts happened on the same day or more than a week apart, and that this “went to the heart” of the evidence against Mdm Tan.

At trial, Ms Lozares claimed that her police statement, which stated that the acts occurred on the same day, was recorded wrongly.

But Justice Xu said that this explanation was inadequate as the police officer testified that she recorded the statement according to what she was told, and Ms Lozares signed the statement, showing that she accepted it as correct.

He also observed discrepancies in Ms Lozares’ evidence about the direction of force of the blow and the pain that she allegedly suffered.

Ms Lozares said in her police statement that she suffered minimal pain from the kick, but testified at trial that she felt the highest pain imaginable from the blow, according to submissions by Mdm Tan’s lawyers.

“Sometimes, details do matter,” said Justice Xu, adding that these were important aspects of the allegations.

There were also inconsistencies in the allegations made by Ms Arangote, with the judge pointing out the number of times she claimed that Mdm Tan had pinched her as an example.

Ms Arangote told police and the prosecution that she was pinched twice on her right arm, but told the defence she was pinched once. She then maintained that her evidence to the defence at trial was correct.

Mdm Tan’s lawyers had argued that it was “difficult to understand” how Ms Arangote’s recollection could be clearer at trial than in her statement to the police, which was closer in time to the alleged act.

They had also pointed out similar inconsistencies in the number of times Ms Arangote claimed she was pinched in the chest and thigh.

Justice Xu said that while some variation may be understandable, the degree of difference was substantial and the number of pinches was material to the charges as it was the very act of hurting the maid that was in question.

He also observed other discrepancies, such as in which month Ms Arangote’s arm was pinched, and whether Mdm Tan pinched her stomach in the bedroom or living room.

Taken together, these inconsistencies had the effect of weakening the assertions underlying Ms Arangote’s allegations, he said.

In contrast, Mdm Tan was consistent in her denial of causing any hurt or abuse, and Justice Xu found her evidence to be more credible than that of the complainants.

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.

In cases where the offences involve a domestic worker, the court may sentence the offender to one-and-a-half times the amount of punishment to which he or she would otherwise have been liable.