.jpg?20260904')
The attorneys of a man, who was found guilty of biting off one-third of the ear of his family’s domestic worker, have once again attempted to use an insanity plea in the appeals process, despite failing the first time.
In early July, the appeals court granted their request to conduct a second psychiatric evaluation, but the hearings have been adjourned week after week as the report has not yet materialised.
The domestic worker has been working at the appellant’s family home for 23 years, the court heard, when he began an altercation with her that ended in him biting a chunk of her ear off.
The 35-year-old appellant was previously convicted of committing assault that caused a permanent injury, which medical experts evaluated as ‘seven per cent disability’, after the Filipina lost part of her left ear.
The High Criminal Court sentenced him to three years in prison. He has now lodged an appeal against the ruling.
“Our client has been diagnosed with schizophrenia and psychosis, accompanied with delusions grandiose and religious delusions,” the defence memo read.
“He experiences lack of insight – not admitting to being unwell – which is the most prominent symptom of mental illness he experiences.”
A report, authored by a psychiatrist at a private hospital, stated that he heard ‘multiple voices’ in his head, which got worse during the night, and was prescribed olanzapine (Zyprexa) as an antipsychotic.
An official report by government consultants is awaited by the Supreme Criminal Appeals Court to continue the appeals process.
Besides claiming ‘insanity’, his lawyers attempted to dismiss the ‘7pc disability’ accusation, stating that the 47-year-old Filipina victim is undergoing a series of reconstructive surgeries to make her ear whole again.
“The 7pc injury is not a final number – it is not a permanent injury that cannot be treated or ameliorated,” read the defence memo.
“The victim’s medical team immediately began the process of an advanced reconstructive procedure, in which the cartilage, extracted from the severed part, is grafted back into the ear.
“The severed tissue was preserved, in order to carry out a cosmetic operation that would negate the disfigurement that resulted from the bite. How can it be called a permanent injury, then?”
The memo further argued that the charges should be stepped down from felony to misdemeanour, since the effects of the attack – the injury – is reversible.
A medical report stated that the woman lost a considerable part of her left pinna – the external part of the ear – and that it is likely to be caused by ‘a bite of great force’ and was referred to plastic surgery.
An image of the severed ear was attached in court files, along with photos of the victim who was covered in blood, as well as the bloody trail left by the assault.
The man had admitted to charges in Public Prosecution hearings but claimed it was ‘a mistake’.
The GDN previously reported the victim’s testimony about the incident. She stated that the appellant began an altercation with her, unprovoked, that kicked off a series of events that ended with her losing part of her ear.
“It was 9.15am and I was cleaning the living room, when the appellant came and asked me where his phone was,” she testified. “I told him it was in his hand, which put him in a state of extreme anger. He looked at me like he would attack me, which scared me. So, I ran to the kitchen and wanted to call someone to help me.
“He ran after me and pulled the phone from my hand. I asked for it back and he refused, so I took his phone from him. I said I’ll give it back if he gave me my phone back.
“He pushed me and I fell. He beat me up, sat on my back and injured my ear. His sisters moved me away from him. When I looked at him, I saw some of my hair in his mouth – I think he bit me.
“His sister took me to the kitchen and tended to my wounds. When I went back to the living room, I saw a piece of my ear on the floor next to a knife.”
Meanwhile, the appellant’s sister claimed that victim ‘put a spell on the house to make everyone obey her.’
In statements to the Public Prosecution, she claimed that the victim was unusually interested in black magic, sorcery and jinn.
In the original trial, the man’s defence stated that he could not be held responsible for his actions because of his mental illness but he was declared fit to stand trial.
The appeals hearing was adjourned to September 12, when the psychiatric report is expected to be submitted to the court.
&uuid=(email))