 |
| Filipina's case ends at the High Court |
A Filipina who questioned the conclusion of a magistrate who found her guilty of working illegally, has failed to convince the High Court to overturn the verdict, for which she was sentenced to three months’ imprisonment.
Yolanda Palayon, a domestic helper, had claimed that Shatin Magistrate Norton Pang erred in concluding that she was illegally working in a car wash in Pat Heung, New Territories, when she was arrested by Immigration officers on July 26, 2021.
Palayon was one of three domestic helpers who were arrested for working in the car wash and charged with breach of conditions of stay, in violation of the Immigration Ordinance.
One of them pleaded guilty and had her sentene reduced by a third, while the other was convicted along with Palayon after trial at the Shatin Courts.
Only Palayon appealed her conviction to the High Court, asserting that the magistrate “erred in finding that the prosecution had proved the charge beyond reasonable doubt.”
But Deputy High Court Judge Amanda Jane Woodcock, in a decision dated Dec. 29, 2022, found “no basis to interfere with the magistrate’s findings”.
Judge Woodcock summarized the key points that led to the magistrate’s decision: “There was no dispute by the defence that the appellant stood next to a vehicle with a blue towel in her hand. Where she was found was in a car wash where people pay to have their cars washed and she was observed washing a car. One of the owners or proprietors was present at the material time. There was no evidence that she was cleaning the car as a favour or out of friendship. In any event, the defence evidence was that she was there to prepare food for a party which would not include wiping a car.”
She also cited the testimony of the Immigration officer who arrested Palayon, that she and her co-defendants took their handbags from a cabinet inside the car wash, when the officers asked for their identity cards.
She added that Magistrate Pang was correct in disregarding as self-serving the testimoney of the lone defense witness, the owner of the car wash, who asserted that the three domestic helpers were in his shop to help prepare food for a party to be held there that evening and not to wash cars.
“I am satisfied the magistrate fairly and properly considered the issues. He rejected the evidence of the defence witness with good reason,” Judge Woodcock said.
.jpg)
