Disciplinary tribunal dismisses Parti Liyani’s complaint against prosecutors over handling of theft trial

SINGAPORE — A disciplinary tribunal has investigated and dismissed former domestic worker Parti Liyani’s misconduct complaint against two prosecutors who had handled her high-profile theft trial in the State Courts.

The court-appointed tribunal, which comprised Senior Judge Chao Hick Tin and Mr Patrick Ang from law firm Rajah & Tann, said in its grounds of decision dated March 10 that they found “no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action” against Deputy Public Prosecutors (DPPs) Tan Wee Hao and Tan Yanying.

The tribunal will submit its findings to Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, who had granted leave for the tribunal to be appointed in October 2020 after finding a prima facie case — based on evidence first seen at the time — against the DPPs.

This latest development could spell an end to Ms Parti’s legal courses of action. Last year, the High Court rejected her bid to seek S$10,000 compensation from the Attorney-General’s Chambers over the case.

Ms Parti, 47, an Indonesian domestic worker, was convicted in 2019 of stealing more than S$34,000 worth of items from her ex-employer, businessman and former Changi Airport Group chairman Liew Mun Leong. She was then sentenced to 26 months' jail.

In June 2020, she filed the complaint against the prosecutors who handled her trial. Then in September that year, the High Court acquitted her following an appeal. 

The high-profile case sparked public outcry, raising questions about how her trial was conducted and if there were issues with the evidence-gathering process.

WHAT THE COMPLAINT IS ABOUT

Ms Parti’s complaint centred around a Pioneer DVD player valued at S$1,000 and which was said to have belonged to Mr Liew. She believed it was spoilt and denied stealing it.

She contended that during the trial, both DPPs concealed material facts and created the false impression that the DVD player was fully functional.

This led to her conceding on cross-examination that it worked. The DPPs then accused her of lying about how she came to possess the player.

However, when Ms Parti’s lawyer Anil Balchandani produced the player during the High Court appeal, the prosecution admitted that there were issues with its functionality.

It functioned through two modes: The DVD or HDD mode. The DPPs demonstrated that it could work in the HDD mode but did not tell the court that it could only be operated through this function. Mr Balchandani then demonstrated that it could not work in the DVD mode.

The judge who acquitted Ms Parti, Justice Chan Seng Onn, noted that the prosecution should have fully disclosed its knowledge that the player was not working properly.

In his judgement when granting leave to appoint a disciplinary tribunal, Chief Justice Menon noted that before demonstrating the player’s use during the trial, the DPPs had tested it on their own and already discovered that the player was unable to read a DVD found inside the device.

They did not tell the district judge about its dual functionality and their difficulties either.

The chief justice said he was satisfied that the DPPs’ conduct “might suggest a lack of candour and that this may have resulted in (Ms Parti) being cross-examined unfairly, and in (Ms Parti) and the court being misled”.

However, he stressed that nothing in his judgement should have any bearing on the tribunal’s findings and decision.

ARGUMENTS AND RULING

During the tribunal hearing, the prosecutors’ main defence was that at the trial, they reasonably understood and acted on the basis that the relevant issue was whether the device worked or did not work — not whether it was fully working or otherwise.

The DPPs reiterated that Ms Parti herself had told the police that she thought the device was not working at all, and was under the impression it only had the DVD function.

The prosecutors also argued that the device not being able to play a DVD disc was immaterial to Ms Parti’s case, because all the DPPs needed to rebut Ms Parti’s defence was to show that the device was working.

In its grounds of decision, the tribunal said that it was “vitally important to understand the state of play” during the trial relating to the criminal charge involving the device.

The main issue then was whether Ms Parti’s employer had given consent for Ms Parti to take the device. Additionally, neither the prosecution nor defence thought it was necessary to examine the device until Ms Parti was being cross-examined.

Evidence showed that the prosecutors were not familiar with the device, the tribunal said.

The tribunal added: “Having deliberated long and hard over it, we find it difficult to fault the (DPPs) for thinking that the device was working as demonstrated even though they could not play the disc. Far less could it be said that the (DPPs) knew that the DVD function of the device was faulty and deliberately chose to suppress that fact.”

The tribunal also said they found it “difficult to accept” Ms Parti’s contention that the prosecutors had suggested at the trial that the device was fully working.

It was not obvious that because the device could not play two specific DVD discs, there was a problem with the device rather than the discs themselves. It would not be appropriate to conclude that the DPPs knew the DVD function was not working, the tribunal said.

While in hindsight, it could be argued that the prosecutors should have done more to ascertain the device’s condition, the tribunal said that Mrs Liew had testified it was working. Ms Parti had also not asked the court to direct that it be examined by an expert.

“If the issue at trial had turned on specifically whether the DVD function was working, then the (DPPs) should have disclosed their problems with playing the DVD disc.

“However, as the issue all along was whether the device was working, and as mentioned before, the messages shown on the device when the DVD disc was sought to be played by the (DPPs) did not inform them that the device was at fault, the (DPPs) cannot be faulted for lack of candour.”

The tribunal also rejected Ms Parti’s proposed amendment to her complaint, saying she had made a late request and such an amendment would prejudice the DPPs.

It also seemed to them that Ms Parti was recognising the difficulty of proving her case by asking for the proposed amendment, the tribunal said.

The amendment was to insert the phrase “of the possibility” here:

“In the course of this, the DPPs must have been aware of the possibility that the device was not fully working and was spoilt… Accordingly, before the cross-examination of (Ms Parti), the DPPs were aware of the possibility that the device was not fully working and was spoilt.”

In a statement, a spokesperson from the Attorney-General’s Chambers said the DPPs had “cooperated fully in the inquiry and were appreciative of the opportunity to present a full and transparent account of what transpired during the trial”.

The spokesperson added: “They take their duties as prosecutors seriously and will continue to prosecute cases in the public interest. The Attorney-General’s Chambers continues to hold our legal officers to high standards of integrity and professionalism as officers of the court.”