Former domestic worker Parti Liyani is seeking a compensation order against the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) over the criminal proceedings brought against her.
Her defence counsel Anil Balchandani estimates that Ms Parti had suffered around S$71,000 in losses as a result of being unable to work due to the theft proceedings for the past four years.
S$41,000 from the estimated sum is for Ms Parti’s salaries including contractual increments over the past four years. The amount was calculated based on her experience of 20 years as a domestic worker.
The sum also includes S$29,220 for her accommodation expenses at a shelter run by the Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (HOME).
Justice Chan Seng Onn–the High Court judge who overturned Ms Parti’s conviction and sentencing last month–however noted that the cost of court hearings for compensation order would exceed S$10,000, as the court needs to hear arguments on whether the prosecution was frivolous or vexatious.
The judge subsequently recommended out-of-court mediation with a third party to help both parties settle on a confidential amount of compensation.
Mr Anil replied that while he will consider the prospect of mediation, he and his client are of the view that there has been “some amount of injustice that we wish the court to hear and order compensation”.
“The prosecution has to show why they commenced prosecution with a reasonable prospect of conviction.
“The cost of compensation is a fraction or nominal way to show that something went wrong,” he said.
Mr Anil added: “The appellant, who is now a free person, was wronged, and the AGC could be a little wiser the next time round. That’s all. This is not meant to prolong an already lengthy trial as well as appeal.”
Mr Anil also told Justice Chan that Ms Parti has decided not to seek compensation from her former employer Liew Mun Leong, whose belongings she was accused of stealing during the trial.
Ms Parti was also accused of stealing from members of Mr Liew’s family, particularly his son Karl Liew.
Referring to Mr Liew, Mr Anil said that Ms Parti had instructed him not to “add more to his problems”, particularly in light of Mr Liew’s resignation from his position as Changi Airport Group chairman, among other roles.
The lawyer continues to represent Ms Parti pro bono from the trial in the District Court to the appeal stage in the High Court previously.
Deputy Chief Prosecutor Mohamed Faizal said on behalf of the AGC that it will respond on whether it is open to mediation by Friday (30 October).
Should the prospect of mediation fail, Mr Anil and the prosecution will return at a later date to resume their arguments on Ms Parti’s compensation order.
Chief Justice earlier granted leave for Parti Liyani to have prosecutors’ alleged misconduct investigated
Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon earlier granted Ms Parti leave to have an investigation carried out into her complaint of alleged misconduct against two prosecutors during her trial process.
He stated last Friday (23 October)–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.
