[ad_1]
SINGAPORE: An Indonesian maid who was convicted of stealing items worth S $ 34,000 from Changi Airport Group Chairman Liew Mun Leong and her family was acquitted by the High Court on Friday (September 4).
Parti Liyani, 46, was sentenced in March 2019 to two years and two months in jail after a district judge found her guilty of three counts of home burglary and one count of robbery as a maid.
On Friday, Judge Chan Seng Onn overturned the convictions and acquitted Ms. Parti of all charges, saying that the prosecution had not proven her case beyond a reasonable doubt.
“Along with the existence of undue motive on the part of the members of the Liew family to mount the accusations against Ms Parti, I consider that the sentences against Ms Parti are unsafe and consequently I acquit her of all charges “Judge Chan said in his ruling on Friday.
READ: Maid found guilty of stealing S $ 30,000 worth of items from Changi Airport Group chairman’s family
The court heard that Ms. Parti was employed by Mr. Liew Mun Leong from March 2007 until her employment was terminated on October 28, 2016 due to suspicions that she had been stealing from family members.
They gave her about two hours to pack her belongings and sent her home.
While packing his belongings, he threatened to submit a report to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) on how he had been ordered to clean the house and office of Mr. Liew Mun Leong’s son, Karl, on multiple occasions, in addition to the home of your employer.
This was in violation of certain MOM regulations, the court heard.
Two days later, Mr. Liew Mun Leong and his son filed a police report against Ms. Parti. They accused her of stealing items from the family, including 115 items of clothing, a DVD player, a luxury watch, two iPhones, a Prada handbag, two Longchamp bags, and Gucci sunglasses, among other items.
She was arrested at Changi Airport on December 2, 2016 when she was returning to Singapore to seek employment.
READ: The Chairman of Changi Airport Group suspected the maid of stealing for years, but tolerated her behavior
“INADEQUATE REASON”
There was “broad basis” for Ms. Parti to file a complaint with MOM, Judge Chan said, given that she had been asked to clean Mr. Karl Liew’s residence and office, as well as his employer’s home.
“In my judgment, there is reason to believe that the Liew family, realizing their unhappiness, took the first preventative step to terminate their employment suddenly without giving them enough time to pack, in the hope that Ms. Parti would not use the It is time to file a complaint with MOM, ”added Judge Chan.
“Once he expressed a desire to complain to MOM after his sudden termination on October 28, 2016, the Liew family followed up with the police report to ensure that his return would be prevented.
“In my opinion, the Liew family could not have made a police report if Ms. Parti had not expressly threatened her on October 28, 2016 to report the matter to MOM.”
Due to the seriousness of the possible MOM complaint, the judge said there was reason to believe that the family would be “very concerned” if the report continued.
Parti’s attorney, Anil Balchandani, who took the case pro-bono, has “sufficiently demonstrated an underlying factual basis in support of his allegation of improper motive” on the part of Mr. Liew Mun Leong and his son, the court judge said. High Court.
Balchandani told the court that the Liew family had “falsely alleged” that Parti was a thief in an attempt to prevent her from returning to Singapore and “thus hinder her future attempt” to submit a formal report to MOM about her illegal deployment.
SHOWS NO INTEREST IN THE BOXES
During the two hours she was given to pack her belongings, Ms. Parti was given giant boxes to put her items in and ship to her address.
But before she could seal two of the boxes, they told her her time was up and she had to go. The two boxes were sealed by two drivers who worked for the Liew family.
After she left for Indonesia, a family member told Mr. Karl Liew about his suspicion that Ms. Parti may have stolen from them, and said they should not send the boxes to her because there could be illegal items in them.
Family members opened the boxes and found items that they claimed belonged to them. Ms. Parti said that some of the items were bought or given to her by her, and that some items were also discarded and found by her.
Some of the items she was accused of stealing were also not packed by her in the three giant boxes, she said.
The court was informed that, despite the fact that Ms Parti returned to Indonesia for more than a month, she “never showed any interest” in finding out why she had not received the boxes.
His reason for returning to Singapore was to find future employment, rather than asking about the boxes, the court heard.
TRIAL CHAIN OF CUSTODY BREAKING
Regarding the chain of custody of the evidence, the Superior Court judge determined that there was a delay in the police photographing and confiscating the items and that the Liews had mishandled them for everyday use.
After Ms. Parti left, the family spent approximately two hours taking out and sorting the items, during which they discovered items that supposedly belonged to the family. A 21-second video was recorded of the articles they had taken out.
Mr. Liew Mun Leong’s wife later stated that she put Ms. Parti’s belongings in the boxes and took out the family’s belongings for daily use.
There was a “real possibility of a mixture of items” and reasonable doubts that the items were not accurately documented in photographs taken by police officers five weeks later.
Although a police report was made on October 30, 2016, Investigation Officer Tang Ru Long did not attend or see the crime scene until about five weeks later, on December 3, 2016, a day after Ms. I left to return to Singapore and was arrested.
IO Tang had told the Liew family that they were free to use the items found in the giant boxes, except to dispose of the items, the court was told.
“The items in the three giant boxes that were the subject of the charges were not personally seized or taken into custody by IO Tang, as he did not want the complainants to ‘re-victimize’,” the ruling reads.
“Claimants were allowed to use the items because they were ‘everyday items.’
This delay, along with the mishandling of the items by the complainants, created a “clear break in the chain of custody of the evidence” from its discovery on October 29, 2016 to December 3, 2016, when the Police took the photographs of the exhibits. .
“Consequently, I find that Ms. Parti’s conviction in relation to several of the items allegedly found in the three giant boxes cannot be upheld,” Judge Chan said.
LACK OF CREDIBILITY
Judge Chan also noted that Mr. Karl Liew was “a witness who not only lacked credibility, but also did not take the testimony process seriously”.
He was only able to identify 34 items from the video images and claimed that some smaller female garments found among the items were his.
His testimony on the valuation of the alleged stolen objects was also “questionable and evidence a lack of credibility,” added the Superior Court judge.
For example, Karl Liew claimed that a damaged Gerald Genta watch was worth Singapore $ 25,000 according to his “impression”, adding that it had sentimental value because his father had given it to him.
However, Mr. Liew Mun Leong stated that the watch was simply another watch that he had given to his son, and that his son had “never told him” that the watch was sentimental to him.
The district judge eventually found that the value of the watch was overstated by S $ 25,000 and changed its value to S $ 10,000.
“The evidence (of Mr. Karl Liew) was internally inconsistent and the other witnesses contradicted it,” Judge Chan said.
“(His) testimony that he was in possession of various feminine items that Ms. Parti allegedly stole from him is also highly suspicious.
“It is unclear how the (district) judge could have concluded that this was the result of ‘Karl’s inability to remember whether any items had ever been in his possession’, especially when some of the items were observed by the (district)) judge to be ‘smaller women’s clothing’ and purses that ‘did not look like men’s purses’.
He said the district judge’s assessment that Karl Liew was “largely credible” was “clearly flawed and against the weight of the evidence.”
Many items that were allegedly stolen by Ms Parti also show some form of “dysfunction,” Judge Chan said, adding that it is “quite unusual” for her to primarily steal items that appeared to be damaged, broken or worthless to the alleged owners.
In allowing Ms Parti’s appeal, he said that the proper handling of evidence by the police and the search of allegedly stolen items were “crucial to preserving the chain of custody of the items.”
