[ad_1]
SINGAPORE – A disciplinary court will investigate the misconduct complaint against two legal service officials who prosecuted Parti Liyani, the former domestic assistant of former Changi Airport Group chairman Liew Mun Leong.
On the grounds of the trial on Friday (October 23), Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon said that he had found a prima facie case for investigation and that he will appoint the court.
“It appears from the materials before me that, generally speaking, the alleged misconduct consists of a lack of frankness on the part of the DPPs in the way in which they questioned the applicant and in the way in which they presented the position to the court, with the consequence that (a) the applicant was unfairly interrogated; and (b) the applicant and possibly the court were misled, ”he said.
Parti was acquitted last month by the High Court of four counts of robbery from Liew’s family.
Through his pro-bono attorney Anil Balchandani, he applied to the Supreme Court under the Legal Profession Act earlier this year for a license, or permission, for an investigation into his misconduct claim against prosecutors. Deputy Tan Wee Hao and Tan Yanying. The duo had tried their case in state court before District Judge Olivia Low.
Faulty DVD player
The alleged misconduct involved a faulty Pioneer DVD player that the DPP tried to show was working. Parti said the Liew family had thrown it away because it didn’t work.
CJ Menon said the evidence suggested that DPPs “may or may have had reason to believe there were problems with the device’s functionality” before proving its functionality in court.
The evidence also suggested that prosecutors did not disclose this possibility to the district judge, Balchandani or Parti, he said.
Furthermore, the prosecutors could have misled the court. CJ Menon said, “It also seems debatable that the DPPs went further in suggesting that there were no issues with the device’s functionality in at least three ways.”
Among other things, prosecutors had tried to show that the DVD player worked by putting it in HDD mode, from which some images of a Discovery Channel recording could be played.
Based on the demo, they got Parti to admit that the device worked as it should. DPP Tan Yanying then used the admission to tell Parti that she had been lying and that her defense was false.
“Arguably, the demonstration of the DPPs and the questions asked in cross-examination created a misleading impression that there were no problems with the functionality of the device,” noted the Chief Justice.
“Cross-examination is a powerful and critical instrument to obtain the truth in the adversarial process. While leading questions are certainly permissible in cross-examination, they should not be used to mislead the witness, ”he added.
The Evidence Act prohibits leading questions in cross-examination that “assume that facts have been proven that have not been proven.”
Said CJ Menon, “The crux of this provision is that it would be inappropriate and unethical for an attorney to base a question on a falsehood and the court should not accept evidence that has been obtained in this way.
“Based on the evidence, it appears to me that there is a prima facie case that it was improper for Ms. Tan (Yanying) to have told the plaintiff that she had been lying on the basis of an admission that could have been unfairly obtained and deceptively “.
During re-examination, the prosecution also objected to Balchandani proposing a demonstration of the DVD player, saying that the judge had already seen it for herself; Parti had admitted its viability; and that he would be presenting evidence from the Bar Association.
Said CJ Menon: “Given that up to this point the DPPs had not disclosed the possibility that the device could not play DVDs, it seems debatable that Ms. Tan’s insistence that the device had been working during her demo was, cousin facie, misleading and could have created an unfair picture of the evidence against the applicant.
“It could also be argued that the line of objection adopted would prevent the discovery of the same difficulties that the DPPs themselves have encountered,” he added.
Finally, in their final presentations, the DPPs said that any problem with device functionality suggested by Balchandani’s demo was “probably” due to the DVD he used rather than the device itself, suggesting that his DVD was corrupted.
CJ Menon said: “By taking this position, the DPPs possibly maintained the impression created during cross-examination that there was no problem with the functionality of the device. However, Balchandani’s demo made it clear that the device was struggling to play not one, but two DVDs. However, the DPPs did not mention the fact that they too had experienced difficulties with the ‘Capitaland’ DVD on the morning of September 26, 2018. “
Duty of DPPs
On its basis, the President of the Supreme Court stated that “it is a basic proposition that the prosecution has the fundamental duty to assist in the administration of justice, and must present the evidence against the accused in a fair and impartial manner and without malice, fear. or please, according to the law ”.
The prosecution also has a mandatory duty to inform the court of any apparent error of fact or law, and any apparent omission of fact or procedural irregularity that must be corrected, he said.
“In this sense, to the extent that the DPPs may have inadvertently failed to bring difficulties with the device to the attention of the court during their own demonstration, it would have been up to them to do so once they realized that there could have been problems with the functionality of the device, ”he said.
“Arguably this should have been evident at least at the time of Mr. Balchandani’s demonstration, who suggested that the difficulties in playing DVDs using the device were not limited to those they themselves had encountered using the ‘Capitaland’ DVD” .
As “justice ministers who must always act in the public interest,” prosecutors must be willing to disclose all relevant material to help the court determine the truth, even if it may prove useless or damaging to your case, CJ Menon said.
“The central consideration in this case is the need to defend the adequate administration of justice and safeguard the integrity of the public service. The alleged misconduct refers to the DPPs who act in the conduct of a prosecution, when they have the particular obligation to help the court, act in the public interest and establish the whole truth in accordance with the law, ”he said.
“The complaint that the judicial authorities of the Public Ministry may have knowingly omitted information and misled the court goes to the very heart of these obligations,” he added.
The court will present its findings to the Chief Justice in the form of a report. If the court finds sufficient cause for disciplinary action, the Chief Justice may punish prosecutors in the form of censorship, prohibition of requesting a certificate of exercise, or removal from the list.
The two prosecutors are represented by State Attorneys Kristy Tan, Jeyendran Jeyapal, and Jocelyn Teo.
‘Trick’
In his written ruling that cleared Parti of his charges last month, Superior Court Judge Chan Seng Onn pointed out several problems with his conviction by the district court and how the case had been handled by both the prosecution and the policeman.
Balchandani had accused the prosecution of using a “sleight of hand” technique to prove in court that the Pioneer DVD player worked.
The prosecution’s actions drew criticism from Judge Chan, who said the trial court could be misled into thinking that the DVD player was in good working order when “questions were (and unfairly) asked Ms Parti … The player was still in good working order after an incomplete demonstration of its important functionalities during testing.
Judge Chan added that the Bar Association’s rule against the presentation of evidence should apply equally to both the prosecution and the defense, saying that the DVD player incident was “particularly damaging” to Parti as it was not gave him the opportunity to test the player until the trial itself. .
Among other things, Judge Chan also said that the Liew family may have had an “inappropriate motive” for filing a police report against Parti. He also highlighted gaps in police procedures, such as a break in the chain of custody, while questioning the credibility of Karl Liew, the son of Liew Mun Leong, as a prosecution witness.
After the acquittal, the Attorney General’s Office said it would study the sentence and assess whether it was necessary to take any additional measures.
Meanwhile, the Minister of Law and Home Affairs, K Shanmugam, warned against a witch hunt, even as the government conducts a review, seeking public trust and accountability, of its shortcomings in prosecuting Parti.
Changi Airport Group Chairman Maid Liew Mun Leong acquitted of theft: High Court
CAG President’s maid Liew Mun Leong was fired equivalent to acquittal of the final position
AGC will study the ruling that absolves the maiden of the robbery of the head of CAG, Liew Mun Leong; can take more action
Government to Address ‘What Went Wrong’ in Prosecution of CAG Chairman Liew Mun Leong’s Maid: K Shanmugam
Parti Liyani case: the president of the Workers’ Party, Sylvia Lim, presents a parliamentary motion
Liew Mun Leong resigns from CAG, Temasek, following acquittal of former maid Parti Liyani
Parti Liyani case: acquitted maid pro-bono lawyer praises NGOs for giving hope to migrant workers
Parti Liyani initiates a judicial disciplinary proceeding against the prosecutors in his case
Parti Liyani is considering withdrawing the application against the prosecutors involved in his case
Parti Liyani will proceed with the request for disciplinary proceedings against prosecutors: NGO
