HKSAR v. KHAN IJAZ AHMED

DCCC 389/2022

[2024] HKDC 1549

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE

HONG KONG SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE REGION

CRIMINAL CASE NO 389 OF 2022

________________________

________________________

________________________

REASONS FOR VERDICT

________________________

1.  D1 was charged with 7 counts of “common assault”, contrary to Common Law and punishable under section 40 of the Offences against the Person Ordinance, Cap 212 (Charges 1 to 7), a count of “assault occasioning actual bodily harm”, contrary to Common Law and punishable under section 39 of the Offences against the Persons Ordinance, Cap 212 (Charge 8), and a count of “doing an act or a series of acts tending and intended to pervert the course of public justice”, contrary to Common Law and punishable under section 101I(5)  of the Criminal Procedure Ordinance, Cap 221 (Charge 9).

2.  D1 pleaded not guilty to all charges.

Prosecution case

Admitted Facts (Exhibit P14)

3.  PW1, Naseer Ramzan, was employed by D1 as a foreign domestic helper under foreign domestic helper contract dated 6 January 2007 and 25 March 2009. 

4.  D1 notified the Immigration Department of the termination of PW1’s employment as from 7 December 2010 by a letter dated 9 December 2010. 

5.  Movement records of PW1 provided by Immigration Department indicated that PW1 left Hong Kong on 7 December 2010 through the Hong Kong International Airport checkpoint.

6.  D1 has a clear record in Hong Kong.

Evidence from prosecution witness

7.  PW1 is the only prosecution witness in this case. 

8.  He was aged 40 at trial.  He was born in Pakistan.  His family, including his parents and siblings, lived in Faisalabad, Pakistan.  He got married in Hong Kong in 2013 and has a daughter.  PW1 had received education in Pakistan up to primary 5.  He was able to speak Punjabi, a little Urdu, but he could not read or write.  He said he only started to learn a bit of English since his arrival in Hong Kong.

9.  PW1 identified D1 in court.  He said he first come to know D1 in Pakistan and they lived in the same village.  PW1 had worked as a labourer in the construction of D1’s home for over a year.  Later, when the house was completed, D1’s family continued to hire PW1 to work in his home.  Later, D1 applied for PW1 to work in Hong Kong as a foreign domestic helper.

10.  He arrived Hong Kong on 1 May 2007.  After delivery of goods to D1’s home on the first day upon arrival, he was sent to D1’s office.  PW1 admitted that he knew he had to work in D1’s office before he came to Hong Kong. 

11.  PW1 said he worked in an office and slept in a dormitory arranged by D1 in Yau Ma Tei.  PW1 said he mainly worked with phones in the office.  In the beginning his hands shook when he touched the phones because he was used to handling bricks.  He said his work included packing and repacking of phones and running other errands.

Charge 1

12.  PW1 said 3 days after his arrival in Hong Kong, he was trying to strap a carton.  As he had no experience, he had difficulty in doing so.  On seeing this, D1 used his right hand and slapped him 3 times whilst teaching him how to strap. 

13.  In court, PW1 demonstrated his face being slapped on the left side 3 times.

Charge 8

14.  PW1 told of another incident when PW1 mixed up different phone models. When D1 learned of this, he came to the office and kicked PW1’s right leg with his right leg.  In court, PW1 demonstrated the position of the right trouser pocket. 

15.  He said at the time, the transformer of the light tube installed in the office was out of order and PW1 was asked to buy a new “tester” to be put in the tube to fix the problem.  The tester was inside the right trouser pocket when D1 kicked him.  The nail of the tester got into his leg.  PW1 agreed to the description of the tester as “a small piece of object”.  He agreed that some sharp part of that object went into his leg, hurt his skin and there was bleeding.  PW1 said that he then went to the toilet and cleaned the wound. 

16.  PW1 said he was assaulted by D1 on many occasions.

Charge 6

17.  PW1 said one day when he was on holiday, he was washing his clothes while sitting on the toilet, he heard bells ringing again and again.  He thought maybe someone had come to collect some goods.  It was actually D1 calling him.  PW1 came from the toilet wearing his shorts.  He ran to the door and tried to open it, but he could not.  PW1 said apparently he was trying to open the door from inside whilst D1 was opening the door from outside using a key.

18.  D1 became very angry and PW1 said D1 was swearing at him from outside and threatening to kill him whilst kicking the door.  Later, PW1 used tools to remove the screws to the lock of the door.  After D1 entered the office, he slapped PW1 once with force using his right hand.  PW1 said D1 then told him to get out of his eyesight and locked the door.

Charge 7

19.  PW1 then told of another incident when a customer from South Africa bringing a large quantity of goods packed in big boxes.  There was not enough room in his office for packing.  D1 said to PW1 that after certain cartons were shipped, there would be space for packing the new shipment.  But as the goods were still there, there was no space for packing.  PW1 therefore sat on the sofa.  When other workers came, they also sat on the sofa.  In the meantime, PW1 fell asleep.

20.  D1 later returned.  He was angry.  He asked other workers to leave for lunch and asked PW1 to go inside his office.  He closed the door from inside and he took off his shoe and beat PW1 wherever he could on his body.  Then he opened the door and asked PW1 to leave.  PW1 said D1 also called PW1’s home and complained about PW1. 

Charge 4

21.  PW1 told of another incident involving Blackberry model phones.  He said these phones were checked before customers came, and   when they came, they found that 10 pieces of these phones not working.  PW1 said actually there were no problem with these phone except some scratches on them, and PW1 had earlier told D1’s brother about the scratches.

22.  PW1 said D1 asked him to go into his office.  D1 asked PW1 how many pieces of phone were damaged.  PW1 replied “10.”  He said D1 then took his landline office phone on the table and threw it at PW1.  PW1 ducked and the phone hit the wall inside the office.

23.  Then there was a “stapler” which was used for punching papers.  D1 threw that “stapler” to hit PW1.  In court, PW1 demonstrated holding the object in his right hand, lift his right forearm and made a throwing action.  PW1 said the “stapler” came towards his leg and he used his right hand to fend off the attack at the front of his leg.

24.  In court, he demonstrated stretching his hand, palm outwards and downwards, to fend off.  PW1 said three of his fingers in his right hand got into contact with the “stapler”.  He said the fourth finger was most painful. 

25.  He said although D1 looked like a gentleman, he was a very fierce man when he got angry.

Charge 5

26.  PW1 then told of an early morning incident when he was sleeping on the sofa in the office.  The doorbell rang and he saw in the video camera there was a Pakistani male.  He thought the goods from China had arrived, so he opened the door and instead saw police officers there.  PW1 got scared because D1 had asked him not to open the door if police came.  Police then were trying to enter but though the wooden door was open, the iron gate was still closed.

27.  PW1 said he was afraid to call D1 for help in fear that D1 would abuse him, but as the police were becoming more and more impatient, he rang D1 and informed him police were there.  PW1 said D1 abused him on the phone and asked PW1 to give the phone to police.  D1 further asked PW1 not to open the door for the police and should wait until he returned.

28.  Later, D1 arrived, he talked to the police outside the office.  PW1 did not understand what was said by D1 as D1 spoke in English.  Then D1 threatened PW1 in their own language.  D1 entered the office.  He took PW1 towards the toilet side, to the place near the corner of corridor outside the toilet and slapped PW1 with his right hand.  PW1 said that at the time, police were not within sight of PW1, although they were entering the office.  PW1 said D1 threatened him even in presence of police, though in their own language.

29.  After that, police came and asked PW1 to show his ID card.  PW1 fetched his ID card from his wallet in the general office area.  Police checked the ID card of PW1.  They also checked the office.  They spoke to D1 and left.  PW1 said after police left, D1 slapped him again.  He said D1 slapped him two times during this incident. 

30.  PW1 said he did not make any mistake.  In fact, police came for D1’s younger brother.

Charge 3

31.  PW1 told of another incident when PW1 was asked to pack goods in the office.  The cargo collection people said one carton of goods was missing and there was an extra label for the carton.  PW1 informed D1 of the same and D1 called the cargo collection people.  D1 asked PW1 where the missing carton was.  PW1 said he did not know.  D1 also said that PW1 would have to pay for the 100 pieces.

32.  When PW1 went to the storeroom, D1 slapped him from behind.  D1 also slapped PW1 and swore at him when he was in the hall area in the office. Later, D1 asked PW1 to check other goods to see if the missing goods were mixed up in there.  PW1 then found the missing box.  PW1 said all these boxes looked similar.  None of the goods was missing.  PW1 said he felt pain after the slapping, but there is no injury.

Charge 9

33.  Then PW1 told of the incident when D1 threatened him inside the courtroom. 

34.  PW1 said during his employment with D1, he did leave Hong Kong two times, on 9 February 2010 and 7 December 2010.  The first time D1 brought PW1 to the wedding of D1’s brother, and PW1 assisted in the preparation of the wedding.  Before his second trip to Pakistan, PW1 said he was fed up with the beatings and he asked D1 to pay him.  However, he was not paid and D1 arranged him to go back to Pakistan and terminated his contract.

35.  PW1 said as he could not get D1 to pay what was due to him, he returned to Hong Kong illegally and went to court to claim from D1.  PW1 said the judge asked PW1 to discuss with D1 for a settlement.  PW1 and D1 went into a room in the court.  D1 then said to PW1 that he would hang his parents upside down and flay them, and that they would suffer because of PW1.

36.  PW1 said D1 had done a lot to his parents and siblings.  As a result of the threat, he became scared.  He said in the end he settled for HK$32,500. 

Half-time submission

37.  At the close of the prosecution case, Defence counsel made a submission of no case to answer on Charge 2.

38.  The court later ruled that there is a case to answer by D1 in respect of all charges except Charge 2. 

Defence case

39.  D1 had been explained of his rights and he elected not to give evidence, nor call any defence witness. 

Discussion

40.  This court has carefully considered submissions by defence counsel. 

41.  This is a case where PW1 is the only prosecution witness.  There is no medical evidence, photographs of injury or admission by D1.  The court will, therefore, need to consider and assess the evidence of PW1 with extra caution.

42.  This court reminds itself that the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.  It is not the duty of the defence to prove their case.

43.  D1 is a man of clear record and due consideration regarding his propensity to commit crime has been given.  D1 has been explained of his rights and he elected not to give evidence.  This is his right and this court would not draw adverse inference against him by reason of his election.

44.  The matters complained of happened between 14 and 17 years ago.  There is therefore years of delay between the alleged offences and trial.  The court warns itself of the impact which this may have on the memories of the witnesses, and as to difficulties which may have resulted for the defence.

45.  There might be a danger of real prejudice to a defendant and the court must have this in mind when the court decides whether the prosecution has made the court sure of the defendant’s guilt.  The court must make allowance for the fact that from the defendant’s point of view, the larger the time since an alleged incident, the more difficult it might be for him to address.

46.  In court, PW1 has impressed this court to be a man of unusually small stature.  He had only received limited education and was unable to read or write Urdu or Punjabi, although he could speak Punjabi and a bit of Urdu.  He only started learning a bit of English since his arrival in Hong Kong.  He obviously came from a poor family in Pakistan as he worked as a construction labourer, or as a servant doing household chores.

47.  According to him, since his arrival in Hong Kong, he has worked for D1 and was travelling daily between the office in Tsim Sha Tsui and his dormitory in Yau Ma Tei.  He would be summoned to do errands after office hours. Although PW1 was employed as a foreign domestic helper, D1 had arranged PW1 to work in his office.  PW1 frankly admitted that he knew this arrangement before his arrival in Hong Kong.  PW1 had to yield to requests and directions of D1 even in late evening.

48.  PW1 was clearly not a smart person, probably due to limited education and exposure.  When asked in court what his height was, he was unable to tell. Even when asked if he was 5 feet 4 inches tall, he replied he did not know, but he agreed that D1 was a lot bigger, taller and heavier.  PW1 was obviously not good in expressing himself.

49.  As defence has pointed out in court, PW1 said D1 threw a “stapler” at him, but he further described the “stapler” as something used to punch holes. Later PW1 corrected himself and said it was used to make pins.  He was clearly not familiar with the names and the use of these office equipment. 

50.  PW1 also said when he first worked for D1 and had to handle phones, his hands shook as he was unfamiliar with handling these items in the past.

51.  Defence said if the alleged assaults had happened as PW1 told the court, why would PW1 not report the case to the police?  PW1 in court did explain that he did not understand English. Even when he was intercepted by police for jaywalking, he had to ring his colleagues for the latter to speak to the police in order to understand what the police was asking or trying to do.  Of course, he could not have risked and asked his colleagues, who were relatives of D1 or related to D1 or dependent on D1, to report the assaults by D1 to police on his behalf.

52.  One must not forget that PW1 was of the view that D1 and his family were very influential in their village in Pakistan and could do things harmful to his family.  There was vast discrepancy in social status and financial standing of PW1 as opposed to that of D1.  This is not disputed, and this court has no doubt that these things matter a lot in Pakistan.  PW1 and his family are still residing in the same village as D1’s family.

53.  This court agreed that PW1 disliked D1 for the things that D1 did to him and always described D1 as having destroyed him.  Despite this dislike of D1, PW1 did not exaggerate in his evidence against D1.

54.  For example, regarding the shoe incident, PW1 could have lied and said that he had bruises all over his body after the attack.  Instead, he said he just felt pain in the back and therefore presumed he had bruises on the back.  He frankly admitted that he could not see his own back himself to check if there was actually noticeable bruises after the attack.  He explained he did duck and avoid the attacks by D1 which obviously minimised the harm to him.

55.  For the stapler incident, PW1 could have said all fingers were swollen after the incident, but instead he said two or three fingers were hit by the stapler and they were painful.

56.  In court, PW1 was seen to be at various times very upset and he said things to D1 like “I curse on you that your son should suffer the same.” Defence said this showed the animosity that PW1 has against D1.   But this curse, in the view of the court, would not be threatening had there not been assaults on PW1 by D1 because there would not be suffering.

57.  Defence criticised PW1 for not directly answering questions in cross-examination.  In fact, in examination-in-chief, PW1 also said things not directly pertaining to the important issues or the questions asked.   He spent time telling detailed background information.  For example, he would tell D1 always stay in the office overnight after disco on Saturday, or D1’s friends asked PW1 to buy yoghurt and Blue Label whiskey during their visit.  These are matters not relevant and not asked by the prosecuting counsel.

58.  This court opined that PW1 was a man, far from smart, partly due to his limited education and exposure.

59.  The matters complained of by PW1 happened between 14 and 17 years ago. It is not disputed that PW1, although having received limited education, was illiterate.  He was unable to and did not refresh his memory by reading the transcript or watching the video-recorded interviews conducted by the police years ago before he came to court.  His evidence was therefore solely based on his recollection of the events.

60.  Whilst this court agrees that if one is painful after the assault, one is injured.  However, it is clear and this court accepts that in the mind of PW1, he was honestly of the view, though wrongly so, that if there was no bleeding, there would be no injury.  He told police of the assaults by D1 using his shoe, yet he said he was not injured when he said he felt pain in his back.  It is obvious to anyone that if one was hit by a shoe as PW1 mentioned, he would in the least feel pain and, therefore, one is injured.

61.  Defence said that PW1 evaded the question of whether PW1 did make a torture claim based on complaints against D1.  Actually, PW1 did say he told of his experience on his arrival in Hong Kong and subsequent thereto.  Therefore, he has actually clearly answered the question.  He answered though not directly.

62.  Nevertheless, PW1 said that there was no longer any torture claim lodged by him.  It is an undisputed fact that since PW1’s return to Hong Kong, he has married and has obtained status as a Hong Kong resident.  There is therefore no purpose served for PW1 to further his torture claim.

63.  Defence said that had D1 threatened PW1 as PW1 told the court in the Labour Tribunal, then PW1 should have accepted any offer by D1 subsequent to the threat.  This court disagreed to the assertion.  The threat, if it existed, would definitely work on the mind of PW1, but not necessarily to the extent of accepting any offer for settlement from D1.

64.  As PW1 explained, he had really worked for D1 and should be entitled to the amount claimed by him as advised by the Labour Department. 

65.  This court has reservation to adopt the stance taken by the presiding officer in the Labour Tribunal, when there was no dispute that PW1 did work for D1 during that period of time, that PW1 himself has to support his claim for outstanding wages with evidence.  Would it not be on the burden of D1 to show evidence of payment?

66.  After carefully and cautiously assessing the evidence of PW1, this court finds PW1 a truthful witness.  However, the quality of his evidence was at times affected by his inability to fully and accurately express himself with words and possible memory difficulties/confusion, probably due to effluxion of time.  When in doubt as to what inference should be drawn, this court would adopt an inference favourable to D1.

Charge 1

67.  In the first police interview, PW1 told police that during the first assault incident, D1 used his right hand and slapped PW1’s right face.  But as defence counsel pointed out, in fact on video, PW1 had demonstrated his left face being slapped.  This discrepancy between his words and demonstration justified the clarifying question by the interviewer.  Then PW1 corrected at once and said he was slapped on the left face.

68.  This court accepts that the incident did happen as PW1 told this court. The prosecution has proved Charge 1 beyond reasonable doubt and D1 is convicted of the charge.

Charge 3

69.  Whilst this court is satisfied that PW1 was assaulted by D1 in circumstances said by PW1, ie by slapping in the storeroom and in the hall of the office which caused pain to PW1, this assault could not be described as “D1 hitting the back of PW1’s head” as prosecution in their supplemental opening stated.  There is also no evidence that the assault happened in the evening. As such, this court, whilst accepting PW1’s evidence, the evidence did not support this particular charge as depicted in the supplemental opening. 

70.  The charge as depicted was not proved.  Therefore, this court finds D1 not guilty of this charge.

Charge 4

71.  PW1 frankly admitted that he did not mention D1 throwing the landline phone at him in his video-recorded interview, and he explained that he had forgotten to tell at the time of interview.  In any event, PW1 said that he dodged, the phone did not actually hit him as it hit the wall, and he was only hit by the “stapler”.  Although PW1 did in the interview say the stapler hit his two fingers and was painful, in court he said three fingers were hit and they felt painful.

72.  This court accepts beyond doubt the incident that a “stapler” object was thrown at PW1 at the time, and when PW1 fended off the attack with his right hand, the stapler hit his fingers and he felt painful.  There was no blood which in the mind of PW1 meant there was no injury. 

73.  This court did not agree with the speculation of the defence that bones would be fractured if the stapler got in contact with the defendant’s hand in such fending action.

74.  It did not matter whether two fingers or three fingers got in contact with the stapler.  The discrepancy in the evidence of PW1 was understandable in view of the lapse of time.  This court is convinced that the incident did occur. 

75.  This court finds the charge proved beyond reasonable doubt and D1 is convicted of this charge.

Charge 5

76.  In the supplemental opening of the prosecution, the time of offence was described as at around 2:00 am to 2:30 am.  PW1, when giving evidence, said that he went to the dormitory after work.  At around 1 am,  he had his dinner from the fridge.  Afterwards, D1’s uncle said something to PW1 and PW1 returned to the office and laid on the sofa.  Then he heard the ringing of the bells. The assault incident occurred later on.

77.  Although PW1 in court told of the slapping by D1 outside the toilet near the corner of the corridor, and not as described in the supplemental opening as inside the washroom, this court did not find the discrepancy material.  

78.  PW1 when cross-examined said once he opened the door, D1 quickly entered the office ahead of PW1, and he swore at PW1 while pushing him towards the toilet and slapped PW1.  Police then could not see what happened because there was a corridor.

79.  PW1 said in the interview dated 9 June 2017 from 0950 hours, “After that he immediately bring the police in, and police saw everything.”[1] Obviously, PW1 did not mean the police witnessed the assault incident as they were not yet inside the office and within sight at that time.

80.  In paragraph 24 of defence counsel’s submission, PW1 was quoted as saying in the video-recorded interview that “there is our store, he just pushed me to the toilet.”  In fact, according to the transcript of the video-recorded interview, it should be “he just pushed me towards the toilet.”  This entry is consistent with PW1’s evidence in court that he was outside the toilet in the corner of the corridor when he was slapped.

81.  PW1 in court said D1 was already abusing and swearing at him in their language before he entered the office.  This was not disputed by the defence. The court failed to see how the police could have acted as defence suggested in the submission, when they heard the swearing in Punjabi, a language that the police officers failed to comprehend.

82.  Defence counsel queried the possibility that D1 would slap PW1 when police were present.  Although this is not the evidence before the court, this court has noted numerous cases when people assault another even in the presence of police.  This is something not sensible, but these things do happen. 

83.  Further, according to PW1, police should be after D1’s brother at the time and thought PW1 was D1’s brother.  Police were not afraid that PW1 could escape as PW1 did not escape even before police were not able to enter the office.  Therefore, there was no urgency for them to apprehend PW1 at a fast speed.

84.  This court is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the assaults by D1 against PW1 did happen in the manner as PW1 told the court.  D1 is convicted of Charge 5.

Charge 6

85.  PW1 maintained, when cross-examined, that D1 was orally abusing him,  swearing at him and kicking the door even when he was outside the office because he thought PW1 had locked the door from within when PW1 did not.  After entering the office, D1 slapped PW1 once with his right hand forcefully. 

86.  This court accepts the evidence of PW1 that D1 did slap PW1 during this incident.  Charge 6 is proved beyond reasonable doubt and D1 is convicted of the charge.

Charge 7

87.  When PW1 was asked if he was attacked by D1, a much bigger built man than PW1, how could he not suffer any injury?  PW1 replied “I suffer hits, but I dodged,” and he demonstrated in court how he dodged.  He said he suffered no injury, but he felt painful for two or three days.  He said there should be bruises on his back as he felt pain for two or three days, but he could not see his own back.  He said as there was no bleeding, there was no injury. 

88.  He confirmed that in his statement to police in the night of 9 June 2017, when asked by police “Did you get hurt?” he replied “No.”  In court, PW1 said he felt painful, at the same time, he said he was not hurt because there was no bleeding.  If PW1 really thought “hurt” would include “feeling painful”, by giving the answer that he was not hurt, even though he is not a smart person, he would have known that his evidence would became unbelievable.

89.  In the circumstances, the court accepts his explanation that he really thinks that “no bleeding” means “not hurt”.  It was noted that PW1 was not asked at any stage if he felt anything after the shoe incident. 

90.  This court is satisfied the incident occurred as PW1 told the court. Charge 7 is proved beyond reasonable doubt and D1 is convicted of the charge.

Charge 8

91.  PW1 said in court he was wearing jeans on the day and the “tester” (or “fuse”)  was inside the pocket of the jeans.  PW1 said that sometimes he wore a shalwar, sometimes he wore jeans in the office.  He also said that he remembered the fuse was inside the trouser pocket.  PW1 also admitted that the pocket of shalwar would be in the front.

92.  PW1 said D1 kicked him so hard that the fuse went into the skin and hurt him and there was bleeding.  He agreed that the object at the time looked like Exhibit D3 produced in court. 

93.  On inspection of the fuse (Exhibit D3), there are nail-like components on the sides.  This court agreed that if large force was applied on the fuse against skin, the fuse could easily break the skin and cause bleeding.

94.  Defence counsel put to PW1 that in PW1’s statement to police on 22 June 2017, PW1 said he was wearing Pakistani clothing at the time and was squatting whilst packing, and the fuse was in his right pocket when D1 kicked him.  PW1 said for the kameez and shalwar that he had, there were pockets on the side. PW1, however, maintained in court that he was wearing jeans on that day.

95.  Defence counsel said pockets of shalwar were always in the front, not at the side.  This court takes the view that if PW1 was wearing a shalwar at the time with the fuse in the front pocket, and PW1 was in a squatting position when the kick occurred, if the size of the pocket is big enough, the item in the pocket could be easily displaced to the side of the hip causing the injury as PW1 told the court.  If the shalwar pocket is tight, then that would prevent the item in the pocket being displaced when squatting.

96.  Whilst this court accepts the evidence of PW1 that an item in PW1’s pocket, be it pocket of his jeans or shalwar or kameez, got into his skin causing him to bleed when D1 kicked him.  In view of the vagueness in PW1’s evidence as to where exactly the item was placed at the material time, and given PW1 did accept in the cross-examination that usually the pocket of shalwar was in the front, and this court not knowing the looseness or tightness of this pocket of the shalwar, the court will give the defendant the benefit of doubt, and the charge is therefore not proved. 

97.  D1 is acquitted of Charge 8.

Charge 9

98.  PW1 said the amount he claimed from D1 was as advised by the Labour Department.  He told of the threat uttered by D1 when they were alone inside the room within the court building when the court asked them to negotiate possible settlement for this civil claim lodged by PW1 in the Labour Tribunal. According to PW1, it was said by D1 that PW1’s parents would be hanged upside and skinned.

99.  Whilst this court accepts the threat was uttered as deposed to by PW1, on the evidence before the court, the prosecution has failed to elicit from PW1 in detail, that when D1 uttered the threat, the conditions under which D1 would implement the threat, and whether the same constituted an act which has the tendency and is intended to pervert the course of justice[2].

100.  It appears that PW1 was saying that D1 made the threat so that PW1 would accept the offer for settlement.  Did D1 mean that PW1 should withdraw the whole claim?  Or did D1 say that he would inevitably carry out the threat as PW1 had brought the case? 

101.  This court finds the charge is not proved beyond reasonable doubt.  D1 is found not guilty of Charge 9.

Conclusion

102.  D1 is convicted of Charges 1, 4, 5, 6 and 7, and acquitted of Charges 3, 8 and 9.  This court has earlier ruled there is no case to answer on Charge 2, Charge 2 was dismissed.