• Ms Parti Liyani, the former maid of Mr Liew Mun Leong, lodged a complaint in June before her acquittal
• She has accused two prosecutors of creating a false impression that a DVD player she was accused of stealing was fully functional
• Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said he was satisfied that the DPPs’ conduct could have misled Ms Parti and the district court

SINGAPORE — Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon on Friday (Oct 23) ruled that a disciplinary tribunal should be appointed to investigate a misconduct complaint lodged by former domestic worker Parti Liyani against two prosecutors who had handled her theft trial.

Ms Parti, who was acquitted last month of stealing more than S$34,000 worth of items from her former employer, businessman Liew Mun Leong, decided last week to press on with legal action.

Mr Liew has since resigned from chairmanship of the Changi Airport Group and left various public and private sector roles.

The 45-year-old Indonesian worker had filed an originating summons in June to begin disciplinary proceedings against Deputy Public Prosecutors (DPPs) Tan Wee Hao and Tan Yanying.

They had prosecuted her in the State Courts, where she was convicted and sentenced to 26 months’ jail. 

A High Court judge then overturned the conviction last month after she appealed. 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.

Under the Legal Profession Act, the chief justice can appoint a disciplinary tribunal if he grants leave for investigations to be conducted into the misconduct complaint.

The tribunal will submit its findings to him and he can either dismiss the complaint if the tribunal finds no cause of sufficient gravity for disciplinary action, or order the DPPs to be punished.

A representative from the Attorney-General’s Chambers who appeared for the DPPs previously said that they will not object to the chief justice referring the matter to a tribunal for investigation.

This would give the DPPs the chance to present their account of what happened and to explain themselves fully, she added.

In a letter to the court dated Oct 6, the DPPs denied having any intention to mislead the trial court. They also denied that the court was misled.

THE COMPLAINT

Ms Parti’s misconduct complaint centres around a Pioneer DVD player valued at S$1,000 and said to have belonged to Mr Liew.

The maid had believed the DVD player was spoilt. In the same vein, she denied stealing any of the other items as they had been discarded, were meant to be recycled or belonged to her.

In Ms Parti’s complaint, she contended that during the trial, the prosecutors 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 Mr Balchandani again 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 had demonstrated that it could work in the HDD mode, but Mr Balchandani then demonstrated that it could not work in the DVD mode.

The lawyer observed that the prosecutors did not tell the court they had operated the player using the HDD function, and accused them of using a “sleight-of-hand” technique.

In acquitting Ms Parti, Justice Chan Seng Onn noted that the prosecution should have fully disclosed its knowledge that the player was not working properly.

Justice Chan said this was “particularly prejudicial” to Ms Parti as she was never given an opportunity to test the DVD player until the day of the trial itself.

In his judgement on Friday, 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.

It was also arguable that the DPPs had gone further in suggesting that the device was fully functional in at least three ways, the Chief Justice said:

1. There was a prima facie case that it was improper for DPP Tan Yanying to put to Ms Parti that she had been lying, based on an admission possibly procured in an unfair and misleading manner

2. The prosecutor asserted that their demonstration proved it worked, and objected to Mr Balchandani’s attempt to perform another demonstration

3. In their submissions at the end of trial, the DPPs said that any apparent issues were “probably” due to the DVD Mr Balchandani used rather than with the player itself

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”.

Nevertheless, he emphasised that he has not regarded any defences that the DPPs may raise, which is the tribunal’s job.

Nothing in his judgement should have any bearing on the tribunal’s findings and decision, he added.

He reiterated that prosecutors must always act in the public interest and that it is “generally unnecessary for the prosecution to adopt a strictly adversarial position in criminal proceedings”.