醉大伯摸上牀 弟婦誤當丈夫
【明報專訊】已婚漢疑醉酒後闖入胞弟一家三口房中，趁與丈夫分牀而睡的弟婦熟睡期間，涉嫌「明目張膽」對弟婦摸胸非禮，弟婦朦朧間誤會對方是自己丈夫。事後她告知丈夫但對方懶理，終自行報警。已婚被告同住當「廳長」
41歲的譚姓被告報稱任職經理，已婚的他與妻子並不同住，昨就一項非禮罪受審。他被控於今年6月1日在其藍田德田邨的住所內非禮27歲的汪姓弟婦。持雙程證的汪於2007年下嫁被告的弟弟，誕下一子。案發時，汪及其5歲子、丈夫、被告及家姑同住，除被告要做「廳長」，其餘4人均同睡於一房間。汪與兒子同睡，丈夫則睡另一牀。
汪昨供稱，今年5月31日晚上約9時半，與兒子已入睡的汪發現有人滿身酒氣坐在其牀邊，其後更躺下。汪以為對方是丈夫，對方當時全身僅穿一條內褲，一手摟着汪的頸部，另一手則捉住汪的手摸其陽具，其後又捏其胸部近1分鐘。
告知遭非禮 丈夫不理
為怕吵醒兒子，汪着「丈夫」停手卻不果，她遂推開「丈夫」。對方離開後，汪未幾即聽到客廳有打開梳化的聲音，她好奇步出觀看，仍懵然以為對方是丈夫，問對方「做乜唔上牀瞓？」，對方低頭未有回應。回房後她卻赫然發現其丈夫正在另一牀上睡覺。她向丈夫告知遭大伯非禮，但丈夫未有回應，她遂自行報警。
惟辯方指出，汪與被告及家姑關係一向不佳，被告為了母親的事，不時與汪爭吵；汪與家姑爭吵時，會以粗言穢語互罵。辯方更指出，汪的家姑曾有首飾不翼而飛，其後汪一度承認偷去物品，故質疑其誠信。汪雖承認與家姑關係不佳，但堅持「從來唔掂奶奶啲嘢」，疑失竊的首飾其後亦被丈夫尋回。案件明續。
【案件編號：KTCC2931/12】(8/8/2012)
This case certainly raises a lot of eyebrows. The vivid factual report by Mingpao creates a certain sense of lewdness in reading. The lustful venture of the brother-in-law enhanced by alcohol without doubt is a classic case of Dutch courage. What added to its absurdity and rarity is the fact that the victim could have mistaken him for her husband. That said, the first thing comes to my mind is R v Collins[1972] 2 All ER 1105. Below are the facts taken from the judgement of All England Law Reports. Law students taking criminal law should have read this case when they study the law on theft.
The appellant was a young man of 19 and the complainant a girl of 18. One evening the appellant had had a good deal to drink and was desirous of having sexual intercourse. Passing the complainant’s house he saw a light on in an upstairs room which he knew was the complainant’s bedroom. He fetched a ladder, put it up against the window and climbed up. He saw the complainant lying on her bed, which was just under the window, naked and asleep. He descended the ladder, stripped off his clothes, climbed back up and pulled himself on to the window sill. As he did so the complainant awoke and saw a naked male form outlined against the window. She jumped to the conclusion that it was her boyfriend, with whom she was on terms of regular and frequent sexual intimacy. Assuming that he had come to pay her an ardent nocturnal visit she beckoned him in. In response the appellant descended from the sill and joined her in bed where they had full sexual intercourse. After the lapse of some time the complainant became aware of features of her companion which roused her suspicions. Switching on the bed-side light she discovered that he was not her boyfriend but the appellant. She thereupon slapped him and went into the bathroom. The appellant promptly vanished. He was subsequently charged with burglary with intent to commit rape contrary to s 9(1)(a) of the Theft Act 1968. The complainant stated that she would not have agreed to intercourse if she had known that the intruder was not her boyfriend. In the course of his testimony the appellant stated that he would not have entered the room if the complainant had not beckoned him in. There was no clear evidence whether, when the complainant beckoned him, he was still outside the window or had entered the room and was kneeling on the inner sill. The judge directed the jury that they had to be satisfied that the appellant had entered the room as a trespasser with intent to commit rape and that the issue of entry as a trespasser depended on the question: was the entry intentional or reckless? The appellant was convicted and appealed.
If the Collins case is not imaginable, what about the Sydney case reported in Sydney Morning Herald last year?
Deliveryman jailed for sex with sleeping woman
Date August 31, 2011
Malcolm Brown
A 22-year-old takeaway delivery driver who had sexual intercourse without consent with a half-asleep women in a house to which he was delivering a takeaway was sentenced to three years' imprisonment this afternoon.
Amit Hamal, 22 was sentenced by District Court Judge Laura Wells from the date of his arrest on July 19 last year and given an 18-month non-parole period to expire on February 18 next year.
Judge Wells said the maximum penalty for the offence was 14 years in jail with a seven-year non-parole period but she took mitigating circumstances into account.
These were Hamal's youth, his interest in training and rehabilitation while on remand, his wife's support of him, his ambition to study accountancy and his good prospect of rehabilitation.
The court heard that Hamal had been delivering Indian food to the woman's house but by the time he had got there the husband, who had left the door ajar, had fallen to sleep in the lounge.
He had walked in past the women's bedroom, noticed she was asleep, and proceeded to remove her pants and have sexual intercourse.
The woman had spoken to her husband about it the next morning. He had denied he had been the one who had done it and said she must have had a "vivid dream".
Hamal had called the house later that day and, during the conversation, had suggested they they become sexual partners. Then she realised that she had been sexually assaulted.
She and her husband reported the offence and a vaginal swab had confirmed the identity of Hamal.
During the trial, Hamal said that the sex was consensual and claimed the woman had initiated the encounter by pulling him towards her.
The jury found Hamal guilty of the offence on June 29 this year.
A 22-year-old takeaway delivery driver who had sexual intercourse without consent with a half-asleep women in a house to which he was delivering a takeaway was sentenced to three years' imprisonment this afternoon.
Amit Hamal, 22 was sentenced by District Court Judge Laura Wells from the date of his arrest on July 19 last year and given an 18-month non-parole period to expire on February 18 next year.
Judge Wells said the maximum penalty for the offence was 14 years in jail with a seven-year non-parole period but she took mitigating circumstances into account.
These were Hamal's youth, his interest in training and rehabilitation while on remand, his wife's support of him, his ambition to study accountancy and his good prospect of rehabilitation.
The court heard that Hamal had been delivering Indian food to the woman's house but by the time he had got there the husband, who had left the door ajar, had fallen to sleep in the lounge.
He had walked in past the women's bedroom, noticed she was asleep, and proceeded to remove her pants and have sexual intercourse.
The woman had spoken to her husband about it the next morning. He had denied he had been the one who had done it and said she must have had a "vivid dream".
Hamal had called the house later that day and, during the conversation, had suggested they they become sexual partners. Then she realised that she had been sexually assaulted.
She and her husband reported the offence and a vaginal swab had confirmed the identity of Hamal.
During the trial, Hamal said that the sex was consensual and claimed the woman had initiated the encounter by pulling him towards her.
The jury found Hamal guilty of the offence on June 29 this year.
The men are of course culpable but what about the women involved. Was there an element of erotic fantasy in itself? It is so inconceivable and certainly I am devoid of wisdom to appreciate.
沒有留言:
發佈留言