Hong Kong couple jailed for torturing Indonesian helper fail in appeal bid

[Windsorlou]

Hong Kong couple jailed for torturing Indonesian helper fail in appeal bid

Case drew attention to plight of foreign domestic helpers

PUBLISHED : Wednesday, 27 August, 2014, 3:41pm
UPDATED : Wednesday, 27 August, 2014, 4:50pm

Chris [email protected]

Tai Chi-wai (left) and his wife Catherine Au were convicted in September last year. Photos: Sam Tsang

A Hong Kong couple convicted of torturing their Indonesian helper for two years with hot irons and bicycle chains have failed in a bid to appeal the verdict.

Catherine Au Yuk-shan, 41, and her husband Tai Chi-wai, 42, were found guilty in September last year of subjecting Kartika Puspitasari to years of abuse that left the 30-year-old with multiple scars, wounds and burn marks.

Au was found guilty of six charges of wounding and assault causing actually bodily harm. District Court Judge So Wai-tak had agreed that she tortured her employee with a hot iron, a bicycle chain and a paper cutter and sentenced Au to five and a half years in jail.

Tai was convicted of two counts of wounding for punching Kartika and attacking her with a bicycle chain, and was sentenced to three years and three months in prison.

Kartika Puspitasari suffered years of abuse. Photo: Sam Tsang

The couple were branded “cruel” and “vicious” by District Court Judge So Wai-tak, and the case drew attention to the plight of vulnerable domestic helpers in Hong Kong.

On Wednesday, Justice Wally Yeung Chun-kuen upheld So’s verdicts at the High Court.

Tai had questioned the consistency of Kartika’s testimony during last year’s trial, and argued there was no direct proof that the injuries she suffered had been inflicted by Tai or Au.

He also said his sentence had been more severe than his conviction merited.

Au filed a lengthy document to court explaining her reasons for applying for leave to appeal. She also questioned the consistency of Kartika’s testimony, and argued through her lawyer that she had been provoked by her employee.

Pointing out that the abuse had taken place over the course of two years, starting in 2010, Yeung dismissed this argument.

“How could [Au] be provoked every day? If so, wouldn’t [Au] just fire her?” he asked.

Au’s lawyer Warren Louis Tang asked for a more lenient sentence for his client if her conviction was not quashed, as Au had no prior criminal record and had three young children.

Yeung will issue a detailed written judgment on a later day.