A husband broke into his estranged wife’s home, moved all her personal items out of the flat and changed the lock when the wife was away, the Court of Final Appeal (TUI) said in a statement yesterday.
According to the statement, both married in the mainland in 2009 and then moved into a flat in Taipa registered in the name of an international investment company. The statement said that in 2013 they had a falling out and the husband moved out of the flat, while the wife continued living there. The statement underlined that since the fallout the couple had never eaten, slept or lived together. The statement said that, however, on May 12, 2014, the husband used his keys to enter the flat and moved out all of the wife’s personal items and changed the lock on the door of the apartment. The statement noted that after the incident, the Public Prosecutions Office (MP) accused the husband of home invasion, according to Macau Penal Code Article 184, and the Court of First Instance (TJB) sentenced him to a prison term of four months with one-year probation.
The statement said that the husband was unhappy with the ruling and appealed the case to the Court of Second Instance (TSI), claiming that at the time of the “home invasion” he and his wife were still not divorced so it was just the case of a husband entering his wife’s flat, which should not be construed as invading a person’s home.
The statement said that according to the TSI panel of judges, the word “invasion” means that “a person did not allow the other person to enter his or her home”, which also applies to “personal space”. The statement added that the word “invasion” does not need to be violent nor has it to cause harm to the other person or damage his or her property.
The statement pointed out that as the couple had not eaten, lived or slept together since 2013, the husband needed his wife’s permission to enter the flat. The statement underlined that for the process of entering the flat to moving out all of the wife’s personal items and changing the lock, the husband did not receive his wife’s permission, so the actions themselves do amount to the crime of “home invasion”. The TSI panel ruled that there was no flaw in the Court of First Instance’s ruling, i.e., the husband’s appeal was unsuccessful.
