A 3-year-old boy drowned in a swimming pool while staying at his grandparents' detached house in Hong Leyuan, Tai Po. The grandfather was charged with neglect of care. The trial judge said that the grandfather, who was over 70 years old, should have known that he was at risk of dozing, and ruled that he Convicted and sentenced to probation.
Grandfather appealed earlier. The judge of the High Court today (25th) ruled that this case was an unfortunate accident. He believed that the original judge's inference was not stable, and he believed that the accident had made grandfather regret his whole life, and it was even difficult for him to face his family. He succeeded on appeal, dropped his charges and sentence, and expressed deep sympathy for what happened to his grandfather's family.
The appellant, Li Qunchao, was originally charged with one count of neglecting a child in his custody, alleging that on June 22, 2020, he had custody, custody or care of a 3-year-old male grandson, Li Zitian, in a detached house in Hongyuan Park, Tai Po. The person responsible deliberately ignores him in a way that is likely to cause unnecessary health damage to the male grandson.
After trial, the appellant was convicted in the Magistrates' Court and sentenced to 2 months' imprisonment, suspended for 18 months.
Appellant Li Chaoqun's appeal in the High Court was upheld, and his charges and sentence were quashed.
(file picture)
Hongyuan detached house swimming pool drowned
The facts of the case allege that the grandparents and their two grandchildren swam and splashed in the swimming pool and inflatable pool of the independent house in Kangyuan. During the period, the grandmother and granddaughter took a shower in the bathroom of the master bedroom on the third floor, leaving the grandfather and grandson downstairs. The blowing pool where he was in was shallow, and the grandfather asked his grandson to take off his water sleeves.
And while watching the male grandson in a chair 8 to 10 meters away, only the grandfather fell asleep.
When he came, he saw that the male grandson was no longer in the blowing pool, and the grandmother also said that he had never seen the male grandson.
They returned to the garden and found that the male grandson had drowned in the swimming pool.
The original judge pointed out that there are still risks in remote observation
The magistrate of the original trial believed that the grandfather said that observing the male grandson at a distance of about 8 to 10 meters would greatly reduce the risk of drowning of the male grandson, but the risk still existed.
Unexpected foot makes grandfather regret for life
The Supreme Court judge in charge of the appeal pointed out, however, that the grandfather may have believed that this act was sufficient to ensure the safety of his son and grandson, so he should not be convicted, and that there was no relevant evidence in the case, whether the ruling of the original magistrate was the only reasonable case for the case. Doubtful inference.
The judge also pointed out that the first-instance magistrate's decision that the grandfather was aware that he was at risk of dozing at the time of the crime was unsafe and unsafe.
The judge therefore ruled that the grandfather's appeal was upheld, and pointed out that the accident was enough to make him regret for the rest of his life, but stressed that whether he should bear criminal responsibility must be decided based on legal principles and evidence.
Case number: HCMA351/2021