‘Clear evidence’ domestic worker did not consent to sex with ex-employer accused of rape, Hong Kong court hears
Hong Kong Free Press
There was “clear evidence” that a domestic worker who has accused her former employer of rape did not consent to the sexual encounter, Hong Kong’s High Court has heard.
The trial of Swedish businessman Patrik Tobias Ekstrom continued at the High Court on Wednesday, with the prosecution and the defence giving their closing submissions. The 35-year-old faces charges of rape and non-consensual buggery.
The case relates to an alleged incident in October 2022 involving Ekstrom’s then-domestic worker, known only as X. Earlier that day, his wife, who he had been arguing with, left for Japan with their three children.
Both X and Ekstrom testified during the trial. X, who is from Nepal, said that after Ekstrom returned to his Shek O home late on October 27, 2022, he forced her into his bedroom for sex. Ekstrom, however, said the two of them had an intimate relationship which was initiated by X before the alleged incident, and that the sex that night had been consensual.
The next morning, X packed up her belongings and left the house. She filed a police report, and Ekstrom was arrested that night.
On Wednesday, addressing the seven-member jury that will decide the verdict, prosecutor Diane Crebbin said the main issue they had to consider in the case was one of consent. There was clearly no consent given by X, she said.
Recounting parts of X’s testimony, Crebbin said the fact that X was prepared to leave that morning even though her job was important was strong evidence that the defendant had made unwanted sexual advances.
She also referred to defence counsel Simon So’s earlier cross-examination of X, in which So suggested that X could easily have resisted while Ekstrom allegedly dragged her up the staircase to the master bedroom. The counsel had asked X why she had not tried to scratch him, bump him against the stair railing, or taken a photo frame off the wall and hit him with it.
Crebbin quoted X as testifying that she did not have the ability to stop him, and that he was holding onto her shoulder with “some force.”
She said X had explained that she could not fight back, and that did not mean she was consenting to the sexual acts to come.
‘Fabricated’ incidents
During the prosecution’s closing submission, Crebbin also challenged the credibility of Ekstrom’s testimony. She referred to his statements that prior to the alleged incident, X had twice gone to his bedroom in July 2022 and initiated sex.
On Tuesday, Ekstrom told the court that the pair had had an intimate relationship, during which X asked him for a loan.
He also said she requested HK$1,000 from him after the first occasion, and HK$3,000 after the second. On both occasions, he obliged. Ekstrom told the court he believed those payments to be separate to the requests for a loan.
Crebbin on Wednesday disputed Ekstrom’s claims. “I suggest both these occasions in July were fabricated by the defendant for the sole purpose to explain why sexual relations took place in October,” she said.
The prosecutor also raised questions about why, if the defendant was telling the truth, X would put her future employment at risk by behaving in such a way particularly as the family had been “very kind to her.” The court had heard in July, Ekstrom had pre-paid four months of salary to X because she owed money for a loan.
Regarding Ekstrom’s statements that he was devastated the night of the alleged incident because his wife and children had left, Crebbin suggested it was not believable that he would accept the alleged advances from X under such circumstances.
She said Ekstrom appeared to be a man “wanting to satisfy sexual desires” rather than somebody worried about their wife and family.
A ‘labour dispute’
So, the defence counsel representing Ekstrom, gave his closing submission after Crebbin. He called X a liar and said her story was “totally not trustworthy,” saying that there was no rape or non-consensual buggery during the night of the incident because both parties were cooperative.
The counsel pointed to X’s medical assessment after the alleged incident. On Monday, the forensic pathologist who examined X said there were no recent identifiable injuries on X, including on her intimate areas.
“Not a single shred of injury was sustained on her body,” So said to the jury, adding that one may expect to find bruises or marks after forceful sex.
So said this case was really a labour dispute between X and Ekstrom. He said X had not been “very frank” to the court about her financial situation, telling the court that while being examined by Cribben, she did not mention that she had a HK$45,000 loan. So said X only talked about it when he asked her directly during cross-examination.
He also challenged X’s evidence that she did not ask for help with the loan, but rather, that her employers had offered to pay it off. So said “no employer” would offer to do such a thing for a domestic worker no matter how wealthy or kind they were after having already advanced four months of salary.
During X’s testimony, she said her employers never ended up assisting her with the HK$45,000 loan.
So then called X opportunistic, saying that she knew Ekstrom was “devastated” after his family had left and saw the moment as a chance to initiate sex and “get some extra money perhaps.”
Ending his closing submission, So told the jury members that they may not like Ekstrom or find him a good husband or father, but that did not make him a rapist. He had already paid his price and lost his family, the counsel added.
Wednesday marked the seventh day of Ekstrom’s trial. Under Hong Kong law, rape and non-consensual buggery are punishable by up to life imprisonment.
| 💡If you are suffering from sexual or domestic violence, regardless of your age or gender, contact the police, Harmony House (click for details) and/or the Social Welfare Department on 28948896. Dial 999 in emergencies. |
Support HKFP | Policies & Ethics | Error/typo? | Contact Us | Newsletter | Transparency & Annual Report | Apps
Help safeguard press freedom & keep HKFP free for all readers by supporting our team
HKFP has an impartial stance, transparent funding, and balanced coverage guided by an Ethics Code and Corrections Policy.
Support press freedom & help us surpass 1,000 monthly Patrons: 100% independent, governed by an ethics code & not-for-profit.