Baffled by acid case verdict

PUBLISHED : Tuesday, 08 June, 1993, 12:00am
UPDATED : Tuesday, 08 June, 1993, 12:00am

I REFER to the court case (South China Morning Post, June 4) in which a 60-year-old man who had attacked his wife with acid was set free as he ''had no intention of causing his wife really serious injuries''.

It was also reported that after having used a toothbrush to smear corrosive acid on her face twice - which she managed to wash off - he held her hostage in the house for 45 minutes so that she couldn't receive treatment.

I would like to ask the three justices on the case what then is exactly ''intent to cause really serious injury?'' If the woman hadn't managed the self protective act of washing her face and all of her skin was burned down to the bone, would that have been enough to satisfy our good justices? Which then raises the question, should women not protect themselves in the face of grave physical danger as the only means of ensuring that justice is done and victimisers are incarcerated? It's a sad state of affairs that women are often brutally assaulted in their homes.

But it's devastating when it's made clear that there is no protection for them from society and that abusers are set free after only a few months in prison.

I would just like to salute the bravery of the victim.

There are people out here who are thinking of her.

JULIA SMITH Discovery Bay


Send to a friend

To forward this article using your default email client (e.g. Outlook), click here.

Baffled by acid case verdict

Enter multiple addresses separated by commas(,)

Related topics