[ad_1]
SINGAPORE – There was good reason and sufficient evidence to charge Ms Parti Liyani with theft, and police investigators and prosecutors had assessed her to be untrue, Minister of Internal Affairs and Legal K Shanmugam.
After being arrested, Parti admitted taking 10 to 15 pieces of men’s clothing without permission, and her explanations about some of the items changed from one statement to another, she told parliament.
The minister was delivering a ministerial statement on the case of Ms Parti, who on September 4, the High Court acquitted of the theft of the then chairman of the Changi Airport Group, Liew Mun Leong, who filed a police report against her in 2016 , and his family. The case sparked an uproar, with parliamentarians and others raising questions about the criminal justice system.
Mr. Shanmugam pointed out that the question of whether a powerful man used the system to his advantage, whether the police and the Attorney General’s Office (AGC) unfairly prosecuted Ms. Parti because of the plaintiff, whether she obtained a fair trial, and whether there was One law for the rich and one for others was of vital importance to Singapore, and he said his statement would address these points.
The case was handled as a routine robbery case and no one tried to influence them, he said.
“There was sufficient evidence to show that robbery crimes were likely to have been committed,” he added.
In his statement, the minister recounted the facts of the case that were heard in court and told MPs that when she was arrested upon her return to Singapore on December 2, 2016, some items were found, including two Longchamp bags, two watches and two white iPhone 4s.
Shanmugam also pointed out how, for example, on December 4, 2016, he said in his police statement that two watches, one “Vacheron Constantin” and the other “Swatch”, were gifts from a friend.
However, in a subsequent statement on May 29, 2017, he changed his story to say that he found the two watches, which turned out to be fake, in the trash of May, the daughter of Liew Mun Leong.
Parti’s claim that she found items such as a Prada handbag, two Apple iPhones and a pair of Gucci sunglasses in the trash was also not credible by the AGC, Shanmugam said.
Putting together Parti’s apparent inconsistencies, her questionable claims about finding expensive items in the trash, and her own admission of taking men’s clothing, the AGC’s view was that there was a case to prosecute, the minister said.
He added that at that time, the Liews had identified all of the items in the charges as his belongings.
For example, while Ms. Parti claimed that she had found some jewelry in the trash, Ms. Liew said that she never threw the jewelry away and would give the unwanted jewelry to the Salvation Army or her friends.
In this case, the AGC assessed that Ms. Liew’s evidence was more credible.
Shanmugam said that the AGC also found that there was a clear public interest in prosecuting Ms. Parti.
“It appeared that Ms. Parti had stolen many items, including seemingly expensive items. It seemed that she had been stealing for years, and it was not an impulsive, impromptu decision,” he added.
He also said that there was a prima facie case against Ms. Parti, and that the police and the prosecution were not aware that the Liews, particularly Mr. Karl Liew, would be inconsistent during the trial.
After her trial in state courts, which lasted for more than 20 days, the district judge found serious inconsistencies in Ms. Parti’s evidence and that she had multiple versions for certain items.
The trial judge noted that Ms. Parti said different things in her statement, compared to her testimony in court, which sometimes changed during cross-examination.
The trial judge also considered his testimony on some evidence on some elements implausible.
For example, Ms. Parti said that she took two phones out of a garbage bag. The phones, which were iPhone 4 models, were about six years old at the time.
The trial judge preferred the Liews’ testimony that they would not dispose of old cell phones and use them as spare parts or to store photographs.
Shanmugam said the trial judge deemed it a lie, after hearing evidence from 12 prosecution witnesses and four defense witnesses and had the opportunity to observe them and consider their testimony.
However, the Superior Court reached a different opinion after a three-day appeal.
Mr. Shanmugam noted that the Superior Court judge gave him the benefit of the doubt because he was concerned about Mr. Karl Liew’s unreliable statements.
The court’s decision on acquittal is final and there can be no appeal, he said, adding that his statement is not an exercise to reopen the sentence.
[ad_2]
