Why the prosecution against Parti Liyani was not 'frivolous or vexatious'
SINGAPORE – In a lengthy judgment, Justice Chan Seng Onn, who acquitted Ms Parti Liyani last year, set out why the prosecution against the former domestic worker was not frivolous or vexatious as she had asserted.
Sufficiency of evidence
Justice Chan said there was sufficient evidence to prosecute Ms Parti.
He said: “While I overturned all of Parti’s convictions in the lower court on the basis that all the charges were not proven beyond a reasonable doubt at the conclusion of the whole trial, I am of the view that the evidence of the Liew family and the inculpatory parts of the statements given by Parti were sufficient to justify the (deputy public prosecutors) commencing prosecution on the charges against Parti.”
The judge said his conclusion was supported by the fact that the defence decided not to make a “no case to answer” submission after the prosecutors had closed their case.
“This implicitly showed some recognition that there was sufficient evidence adduced by the prosecution to justify Parti’s prosecution at least up to that stage of the trial,” he said.
Prosecutors’ conduct of proceedings
Justice Chan said Ms Parti’s assertions against the way the prosecutors conducted the trial did not directly undermine the evidential sufficiency of her prosecution.
He noted that Ms Parti’s district court trial totalled 22 days and dealt with a voluminous number of items.
He acknowledged that prosecutors and defence counsel are subject to the practical constraints of time and resources and some aspects may be inadvertently overlooked.
“In the heat of litigation, one cannot expect every cross-examination question or objection raised by prosecutors or defence counsel to be entirely justifiable,” he said.
The judge said: “Mere dissatisfaction with different aspects of how the prosecutors had conducted the proceedings, even if they are numerous, will not, without more, render the prosecution ‘frivolous or vexatious’.”
Hindsight reasoning
Justice Chan said some of Ms Parti’s assertions were largely based on many of the findings he had made in his judgment acquitting her in September last year.
“However, the inquiry as to whether the prosecution was frivolous or vexatious cannot be undertaken based on hindsight,” he said.
The judge said his earlier findings on issues such as delays by the police in seizing the items were not necessarily apparent to the prosecutors before the trial concluded in the lower court.
Justice Chan also referred to his finding in his earlier judgment that Karl Liew – Mr Liew Mun Leong’s son – was not a credible witness.
Without the benefit of hindsight from Justice Chan’s findings, an objective reasonable prosecutor may not necessarily have discontinued the prosecution after hearing Karl Liew’s testimony, he said.
“Many of my findings were nuanced and made after a detailed analysis of all the evidence already presented to the court.
“In my judgment, it is not clear to the prosecution (and in particular, when there is no benefit of hindsight) that the evidential basis that made the case fit to be tried before the courts had collapsed at any stage of the proceedings even with all of Parti’s assertions considered,” he said.
High threshold
After considering the cumulative effect of all of Ms Parti’s assertions, Justice Chan found that her prosecution was not frivolous or vexatious.
“The decision to bring the charges against Parti was based on sufficient evidence such that there is a case fit to bring before the court,” he said.
“Parti has not established at any time during the proceedings that there were any new developments such that her prosecution ought to have been immediately discontinued midway through the trial.
“The high threshold of showing that the prosecution was frivolous or vexatious is not met.”
Join ST’s Telegram channel here and get the latest breaking news delivered to you.
Source: Read Full Article
