 |
| Tuen Mun magistrate says employer made up the theft charge |
By Vir B. Lumicao
A Filipina domestic worker walked free from court on Feb. 28
after a Tuen Mun magistrate rejected as “doubtful and inadmissible” her
Pakistani employer’s accusation that she stole $2,000 worth of jewelry and
various currencies in his home.
Cheryl Canonoy broke into tears and embraced her supporters
in the gallery after Magistrate Kelly Shui pronounced her verdict acquitting
the maid.
An officer of the Consulate’s assistance to nationals
section told The SUN that ATN would now help the helper file labor claims
against her former employer and complain to the Immigration Department about
her being made to work in two houses.
Canonoy pleaded not guilty to a charge of theft at the start
of the trial on Feb 23. She was initially accused by Shahab of stealing 28
Malaysian dollars, 1,000 baht, 300 Pakistani rupees, 7 renminbi and a gold
necklace worth $2,500 between Dec 1 and Dec 18.
Then the prosecution said the former employer, a court
interpreter, amended his statement before the trial began to include a pair of
earrings and a gold bangle, part of a jewelry he supposedly bought for his
wife.
He also increased the amount of allegedly stolen baht to
1,800 and lowered the value of the necklace to $2,000. In his witness evidence,
Shahab added that another bangle owned by his wife was found in Canonoy’s
belongings two days after she was arrested.
Shahab also said when the police were investigating in his
home, the defendant admitted the offense by saying “sorry” to the police.
But Shui noted that the officer, the second prosecution
witness, said he heard the maid say “sorry” but did not see who it was she had said
it, or whether it was an admission.
The magistrate, in her verdict, said the fact that Canonoy
made no admission of the alleged offense made the court think “the prosecution
witness may have made up all the evidence against the defendant”.
“Given such, this court concludes that his evidence is
inadmissible. When there is doubt, the court is on the side of the defendant,”
Shui said.
Earlier in the trial, defense counsel Robert Connelly
complained to the magistrate that he had seen the employer talking to the
prosecution lawyer and the police witness outside the courtroom while waiting
to testify.
He also said there was no case to answer because the
employer’s testimony was only based on his wife’s allegation that she found the
stolen items in the defendant’s belongings, and the wife was not called to give
evidence.
That prompted the magistrate to adjourn her verdict until
Feb 28 for some time to consider her ruling.
