[ad_1]
SINGAPORE – The former maid of prominent businessman Liew Mun Leong is seeking permission from the court for an investigation into the conduct of the two prosecutors in her case.
Parti Liyani, 46, filed the complaint in June against Assistant Prosecutors Tan Wee Hao and Tan Yanying, who had tried her case in state courts for theft.
Parti was acquitted on appeal to the High Court earlier this month.
On Wednesday (September 23) a pre-trial conference was held in the High Court in the chambers, said his attorney Anil Balchandani.
Ms. Parti’s request, known as an initial subpoena, was carried out ex parte, which means that only the applicant can be heard, unless the court indicates otherwise.
Last month, the Attorney General’s Office filed a subpoena requesting court authorization for the two named legal service officers to appear and be heard, through the state attorneys who represent them, in the process.
Parti, an Indonesian who worked for the Liew family from 2007 to 2016, had been convicted by a lower court of stealing items from the family worth more than $ 34,000.
Judge Chan Seng Onn, in overturning the conviction and acquitting Ms. Parti, had challenged various charges about how the case was handled.
He pointed out that the Liew family could have been motivated to abruptly dismiss Ms Parti’s job and file the police report to prevent her from reporting her illegal deployment to work in the home and office of Mr Liew’s son.
The judge also determined that there was a break in the chain of custody of the evidence. This created a reasonable doubt as to whether some of the allegedly stolen items discovered by the family were accurately documented by photographs taken by the police about five weeks later.
During this period, the police also told the family that they were free to use the items. The items were picked up and put back in the boxes, but it was unclear if the items that were put back were the same as those removed earlier.
Judge Chan also found that two statements were taken from Ms. Parti without an interpreter.
In light of the ruling, the Attorney General’s Office had said that it was reviewing the processing of the case. The Human Resources Ministry said it was in consultation with the AGC on whether further action should be taken in this case, while the Singapore Police also said it was investigating how its investigations were carried out.
At this stage, authorization to conduct an investigation is only requested pursuant to the initial subpoena submitted by Ms Parti.
The investigation precedes the procedure of the disciplinary court on whether there are reasons to convene it.
If Ms. Parti is successful in her application, then a disciplinary tribunal can be appointed to hear the case and present its findings to the Chief Justice.
The Chief Justice may dismiss the case if the court does not find serious enough cause for disciplinary action, or gives orders for penalties, such as censorship, payment of a fine of up to $ 20,000, or any other order to be imposed. deems appropriate.
Ms. Parti filed the summons under Section 82A of the Legal Profession Act, which deals with misconduct by legal service officials and penalties if convicted.
[ad_2]
