Hong Kong court dismisses appeal by Swedish businessman convicted of raping domestic worker

2026-03-25 - 07:03

Hong Kong’s Court of Appeal has upheld a Swedish businessman’s conviction for rape and buggery of his former domestic worker and sent him back to jail. A three-judge panel ruled on Tuesday that the jury had been properly directed during the trial of Patrik Tobias Ekstrom on charges of rape and buggery, and dismissed his appeal. Patrik Tobias Ekstrom outside the High Court on August 16, 2024. Photo: Kyle Lam/HKFP. Ekstrom, who was granted bail pending appeal, appeared in court on Tuesday. He was remanded in custody after losing the appeal. The appellant was found guilty of one count of rape and one count of non-consensual buggery in August 2024, after a seven-member jury returned a unanimous verdict, and was jailed for seven years in November 2024. His then domestic worker, identified only as X, told the court in August 2024 that when Ekstrom returned to his Shek O home late on October 27, 2022, he appeared drunk, forced her into his bedroom, and raped her. X also alleged that Ekstrom told her that he had “raped” or “done this” to a previous helper, Mohini, who was X’s friend, and that made X very scared. Earlier this month, the appellate court granted Ekstrom leave to appeal and released him on bail pending appeal. Ekstrom’s appeal was based on two grounds, with the first alleging that the trial judge, Derek Chan, failed to direct the jury that the allegation involving Mohini was “an uncharged act” and hearsay evidence. Ekstrom’s barrister, Elizabeth Herbert, told the appeal judges on March 4 that the jury could have been misled into believing it was a fact that Ekstrom had also raped a domestic worker. In their ruling, the appeal judges said that during the trial, Chan and the prosecution did not invite the jury to use the Mohini allegation as proof of bad character, and that X admitted she had no first-hand knowledge of whether those previous acts had actually occurred. The evidence was introduced as a factual part of X’s account of how Ekstrom threatened and intimidated her into submission. The High Court. File photo: Kyle Lam/HKFP. The appellant also challenged the admission of four WhatsApp voice messages X sent to his wife shortly after the assault. Ekstrom’s wife and their children were in Japan when the incident took place. Herbert argued that the messages should not have been admitted, as X did not say in them that she had been raped. The appeal judges – Andrew Macrae, Kevin Zervos, and Judianna Barnes – said that, while X did not explicitly use the word “rape” in the messages, they were “sufficiently consistent” with her later testimony, given her distressed state and limited English. Furthermore, the court accepted X’s explanation that she was vague in the messages because she was terrified Ekstrom’s wife would tell him, putting her safety at risk. The judges ruled that neither ground “discloses any error that renders the appellant’s convictions unsafe” and therefore dismissed the appeal. .