Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon on Friday (23 October) granted former domestic worker Parti Liyani leave to have an investigation carried out into her complaint of alleged misconduct against two prosecutors during her trial process.
CJ Menon in a written judgement today stated–in reference to a Pioneer DVD player Ms Parti was accused of stealing–that Ms Parti “contends that the DPPs had, in their conduct of the trial, concealed material facts and thereby created the false impression that the device was fully functional”.
“She contends that but for the false impression that had been conveyed, she would not have agreed, under cross-examination, that the device was operational.
“On this basis, the DPPs suggested that she had lied about the circumstances in which the device came to be in her possession. However, if she had been apprised of all the facts, there would have been no basis for the DPPs to suggest that she had been lying,” said CJ Menon.
Earlier on 15 October, Ms Parti’s spokesperson from the Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (HOME) told CNA that the Indonesian national “has resolved to proceed” with the case against Deputy Public Prosecutors Tan Yanying and Tan Wee Hao.
While Ms Parti filed an application for a disciplinary inquiry in June—some time before her acquittal—she had later filed a notice to discontinue the said proceedings against the two public prosecutors on 29 September.
CJ Menon earlier this month gave Ms Parti two weeks to decide if she wants to go forward with her application to begin disciplinary proceedings against the prosecutors.
It was previously reported that she was conflicted between pursuing the case against the two prosecutors and promptly going back to Indonesia as she was “overwhelmed by the events of the past month”, according to her counsel Anil Balchandani.
However, Ms Parti reportedly believes that the prosecutors should answer to the allegations she made against them in her affidavit on their conduct in her trial.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) said in a statement earlier this month that the two prosecutors “welcome the chance to present a full and transparent account of what transpired during the trial” and “will cooperate fully in any inquiry”.
One of the issues raised by Justice Chan Seng Onn—the High Court judge who presided over Ms Parti’s appeal and subsequently overturned her conviction and sentencing—was related to an incomplete demonstration by the prosecutors during the trial of the DVD player Ms Parti was accused of stealing.
However, Ms Parti argued that the Liew family allowed her to have it owing to the fact that it was damaged.
During the trial, the prosecutors presented the DVD player to Ms Parti and showed that it could play a video stored in a hard disk. However, on appeal, it was shown that the player could not play DVDs.
Justice Chan said that if the prosecution was aware of this defect, they should have disclosed it.
“In particular, the applicant contends that the DPPs had, in their conduct of the trial, concealed material facts and thereby created the false impression that the device was fully functional.
“She contends that but for the false impression that had been conveyed, she would not have agreed, under cross-examination, that the device was operational.
On this basis, the DPPs suggested that she had lied about the circumstances in which the device came to be in her possession. However, if she had been apprised of all the facts, there would have been no basis for the DPPs to suggest that she had been lying.”
The Legal Profession Act stipulates that the Chief Justice will dismiss the complaint should the tribunal find no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action against the prosecutors.
However, if the outcome of the disciplinary tribunal’s investigations find that there is cause of sufficient gravity, the Chief Justice may appoint an advocate and solicitor or a legal service officer to apply for an order to impose sanctions on the prosecutors.
Sanctions may include—but are not limited to—censures, striking the prosecutors off the roll, prohibiting them from applying for a practising certificate for up to five years, and imposing a penalty of up to S$20,000.
