• Former domestic worker Parti Liyani, who was acquitted of stealing from her former employer, was seeking compensation from the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC)
• She accused AGC of being frivolous or vexatious in their conduct 
• Justice Chan Seng Onn in dismissing her claim said that her assertions failed to meet the “high threshold” for establishing that her prosecution was frivolous or vexatious

SINGAPORE — The High Court has dismissed former domestic worker Parti Liyani’s bid to seek S$10,000 compensation from the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) — an application that was the first of its kind here. 

In dismissing it on Monday (June 21), Justice Chan Seng Onn said that Ms Parti, 47, who was acquitted of stealing from the household of prominent businessman and former Changi Airport Group chairman Liew Mun Leong, had failed in meeting the "high threshold" for proving that the prosecution was frivolous or vexatious.

Justice Chan pointed out that an objective deputy public prosecutor (DPP) would have considered that there was sufficient evidence to render the case fit to be tried before the court, adding that the court “must not be distracted by hindsight reasoning”.

Justice Chan noted that Ms Parti's assertions were largely based on his findings when acquitting her. In September last year, Justice Chan was also the judge who overturned the conviction and acquitted Ms Parti of all charges following her appeal. 

“None of the assertions showed any new developments during the continuation of proceedings that irrefutably undermined the prosecution’s case such that the prosecution ought to have been discontinued,” he said in his latest ruling.

Other assertions that she had made “mainly relate to (her) dissatisfaction with how the DPPs conducted the proceedings”, but “this court is not the correct forum to air grievances about the DPPs’ conduct”, Justice Chan said.

“Mere dissatisfaction with different aspects of how the prosecution had conducted the proceedings, even if they are numerous, will not, without more, render the prosecution 'frivolous or vexatious’,” he added.

He also stated that there was no evidence to suggest that the prosecution had any deliberate or insidious motive to disclose photo or video evidence late so as to impede the defence’s preparation for trial, something which Ms Parti had accused them of doing.

MS PARTI’S ASSERTIONS

Under the Criminal Procedure Code, Ms Parti, an Indonesian, could have received compensation of up to S$10,000 if the prosecution was found to be frivolous or vexatious during her trial. 

Her lawyer, Mr Anil Balchandani, had argued in the case’s hearing in April that the prosecution withheld evidence at trial, made purposeless attacks, and went “full steam ahead” with charges even when evidence was insufficient.

He said then that these were all behaviours that show “improper motive” and are not befitting of the public prosecutor’s role as “ministers of justice”, when the prosecution should provide as much information as possible to assist the court to arrive at a correct decision — not to secure a conviction at all costs. 

Arguing that Ms Parti’s prosecution fitted “squarely” into the definitions of frivolous and vexatious, Mr Balchandani said that this case presents an “exceptional opportunity” that can pave the way for other acquitted appellants to seek redress for problems they faced at trial.

Ms Parti, in particular, had suffered losses of more than S$70,000 because she had been unable to work for the past four years due to the criminal proceedings, he revealed last October.

However, Deputy Chief Prosecutor (DCP) Mohamed Faizal Mohamed Abdul Kadir argued that there is no credit to Ms Parti’s application as the word “prosecution” in the Criminal Procedure Code relates to the decision to prosecute, instead of the prosecution’s conduct at trial.

Pointing out that there was no apparent reason for the complainants to frame her, he had said that the charges brought against Ms Parti were “not obviously unsustainable or wrong”.

One aspect of the defence’s case, that she had been set up by the Liew family, was never mentioned in any of Ms Parti’s statements to the police or in the case for the defence, and arose in a somewhat piecemeal and belated fashion during trial, he also said.

JUDGE STRESSES LEGISLATIVE PURPOSE

On Monday, Justice Chan accepted that the word “prosecution” in the Criminal Procedure Code could refer to the decision to prosecute and continue prosecuting, as well as the entire process of prosecution which would include the conduct of the prosecutors during the proceedings as well.

But he said the first definition “best furthers the legislative purpose” of the provision, which is to define a legal wrong and “not to simply create a convenient and alternative procedure for (acquitted) persons” to get compensation by proving malicious prosecution or false imprisonment.

Therefore, a prosecution that is brought against a person in good faith and with sufficient evidence does not become a frivolous or vexatious prosecution simply because the prosecutor’s conduct was unacceptable, he said.

Justice Chan then said it would have been helpful for Ms Parti to have specified the stage at which she felt that the prosecution was frivolous or vexatious. 

“It is at that stage that the court will inquire whether an objective, reasonable DPP would have considered that there was sufficient evidence (including admissible evidence available to the DPP but not yet adduced) to render the case fit to be tried before the court,” he said.

“The court must not be distracted by hindsight reasoning”.

One of Mr Parti’s key assertions was that the prosecution had withheld evidence on the functionality of a Pioneer DVD player, which she was accused of stealing. 

Mr Balchandani pointed out that DPPs Tan Wee Hao and Tan Yanying had already found that the DVD player, which was said to have belonged to Mr Liew, was not fully functional, but instead asserted during a demonstration in the trial that it worked properly, and vehemently objected to the defence conducting its own demonstration on the function of the DVD player.

Justice Chan, however, said that even if the DPPs had failed to disclose the defect, it did not mean that the prosecution was frivolous or vexatious as it is “related to only one aspect of one item in one of the charges”.

“This assertion did not undermine the evidential basis of Parti’s prosecution which was Mr Liew’s evidence that these items were his and had been stolen from him,” the judge said.

Mr Balchandani had also claimed that the prosecution had continued with charges even though Mr Liew’s son Karl Liew, who is now facing charges of giving false evidence at a court proceeding, lacked credibility.

Justice Chan said that his findings on Karl’s credibility “do not mean that an objective, reasonable DPP would, without the benefit of hindsight of my findings, have discontinued the prosecution after hearing Karl’s testimony on the basis that the prosecution was wholly unwarranted at that time”.

“Many of my findings were nuanced and made after a detailed analysis of all the evidence already presented to the court,” he said. 

“In my judgement, it is not clear to the prosecution 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 added.