THE handling of the case against Police Sergeant Ho Chi-wing, who was acquitted yesterday of the single indecent assault with which he had been charged, helps ensure many people will believe him to be guilty of 14 brutal rapes, even though he has not been proven guilty in court.
It may possibly be that justice has been done by default in this bizarre case. The suspicions against him were revealed in a manner which the letter - if not the spirit - of the law permits. But it is extremely hard to argue that the principle has been upheld that a man is innocent until proven guilty.
The temptation to applaud should be resisted. The prosecution was, technically at least, within its rights to use the argument about the allocation of costs to ensure the public knew Sergeant Ho had not only been suspected of the rapes, but had refused to give samples of his blood and sperm - arguably a rather stronger suggestion that he had something to hide than merely remaining silent - and had given false alibis. The judge was technically right to allow the prosecutor to give this circumstantial evidence during the costs argument. But the fact remains that it would not have been acceptable as proof beyond reasonable doubt that he was guilty.
That, after all, is why he was not charged. He was not identified by any of the rape victims - and even the assault victim's identification was so flawed it led to his acquittal. Those involved in the prosecution may be pleased they had a chance to air their suspicions. Some people may be delighted that a man some police believe is a rapist will never be trusted by women and will be shunned by those close to him. But proving guilt requires a higher standard than 'knowing' it. That is why courts exist to judge guilt and innocence. And the fact remains that he is legally innocent. This is not a good result for justice or the rule of law.
