editors
2,418
edits
Parti Liyani legal case: Difference between revisions
m
no edit summary
SGPolitico (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (5 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
[[File:Parti karl liew.jpg|center|Parti Liyani, Karl Liew and Liew Mun Leong]] | [[File:Parti karl liew.jpg|center|Parti Liyani, Karl Liew and Liew Mun Leong|alt=Parti Liyani, Karl Liew and Liew Mun Leong|thumb]] | ||
Parti Liyani (born 1974) is a former domestic helper from Indonesia who was accused of theft by her Singaporean employer, Liew Mun Leong. | Parti Liyani (born 1974) is a former domestic helper from Indonesia who was accused of theft by her Singaporean employer, Liew Mun Leong. | ||
In 2019, she was sentenced to 26 months in jail when the District Court found her guilty of four counts of theft<ref>https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2020_SGHC_187</ref> | In 2019, she was sentenced to 26 months in jail when the District Court found her guilty of four counts of theft.<ref>https://www.elitigation.sg/gd/s/2020_SGHC_187</ref> | ||
Following a successful appeal, the High Court acquitted Parti Liyani of all charges in September 2020. | Following a successful appeal, the High Court acquitted Parti Liyani of all charges in September 2020. | ||
| Line 14: | Line 14: | ||
On 28 October 2016, her employment was terminated by Mr Liew, who was Parti’s formal employer, when he suspected that Parti was stealing from various members of the Liew family. | On 28 October 2016, her employment was terminated by Mr Liew, who was Parti’s formal employer, when he suspected that Parti was stealing from various members of the Liew family. | ||
According to Parti, she worked from Monday to Saturday from 5 AM to 11 PM and was paid around S$600 a month in 2016.<ref>Chua, Alfred. "[https://www. | According to Parti, she worked from Monday to Saturday from 5 AM to 11 PM and was paid around S$600 a month in 2016.<ref>Chua, Alfred. "[https://web.archive.org/web/20250215160519/https://www.channelnewsasia.com/singapore/timeline-changi-airport-group-cag-chairman-maid-parti-liyani-591046 Items taken were damaged or discarded, claimed Liew Mun Leong’s former maid]". ''TODAY''. September 25, 2018. Accessed on 6 October 2020.</ref> | ||
In the nine years of her service, she reportedly had a “cordial relationship” with her employers<ref>Andres, Gabrielle. "[https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/timeline-changi-airport-group-cag-chairman-maid-parti-liyani-13089208 Timeline: How former maid Parti Liyani was acquitted of stealing from Changi Airport Group chairman's family]". ''Channel News Asia''. September 7, 2020. Accessed on 6 October 2020.</ref> despite occasional clashes with the son of the Liew family, Karl Liew.<ref name=":2">Yang, Calvin. "[https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/timeline-of-events-how-former-maid-parti-liyani-was-acquitted-of-stealing-from-liew-mun Timeline: How acquitted ex-maid Parti Liyani, ex-CAG chairman’s family went from harmony to High Court fight]". ''The Straits Times''. September 11, 2020. Accessed on 6 October 2020.</ref> | In the nine years of her service, she reportedly had a “cordial relationship” with her employers<ref>Andres, Gabrielle. "[https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/timeline-changi-airport-group-cag-chairman-maid-parti-liyani-13089208 Timeline: How former maid Parti Liyani was acquitted of stealing from Changi Airport Group chairman's family]". ''Channel News Asia''. September 7, 2020. Accessed on 6 October 2020.</ref> despite occasional clashes with the son of the Liew family, Karl Liew.<ref name=":2">Yang, Calvin. "[https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/timeline-of-events-how-former-maid-parti-liyani-was-acquitted-of-stealing-from-liew-mun Timeline: How acquitted ex-maid Parti Liyani, ex-CAG chairman’s family went from harmony to High Court fight]". ''The Straits Times''. September 11, 2020. Accessed on 6 October 2020.</ref> | ||
| Line 107: | Line 107: | ||
=== The Three Boxes: Inaccurate Police Sketch and Evidence Handling === | === The Three Boxes: Inaccurate Police Sketch and Evidence Handling === | ||
During the trial, a police crime scene specialist, Goh Swee Kiat, testified that he drew a sketch of Liew Mun Leong’s residence on 21 March | During the trial, a police crime scene specialist, Goh Swee Kiat, testified that he drew a sketch of Liew Mun Leong’s residence on 21 March 2018–18 months after Parti Liyani was fired and repatriated. The Defence highlighted that this sketch contained “non-contemporaneous information,” as it depicted three boxes at the house when, by then, they were no longer there.<ref>https://partiliyani.weebly.com/the-three-boxes-misleading-and-inaccurate-sketch-by-police.html</ref> | ||
Prosecution witnesses, including Karl Liew and investigating officer ASP Tang, confirmed that at least one box had been moved to Karl’s house shortly after the police report was filed on 30 October 2016. By 3 December 2016, two of the three boxes were no longer at Liew Mun Leong’s residence. | Prosecution witnesses, including Karl Liew and investigating officer ASP Tang, confirmed that at least one box had been moved to Karl’s house shortly after the police report was filed on 30 October 2016. By 3 December 2016, two of the three boxes were no longer at Liew Mun Leong’s residence. | ||
| Line 114: | Line 114: | ||
Furthermore, the Defence contended that this was not merely a case of lost evidence, but of ''“prosecuting authorities being prepared to adduce evidence which was not what it purported to be.”'' By directing Goh to depict a layout he had no direct knowledge of, ASP Tang had ''“essentially doctored evidence”'' to mislead the court. | Furthermore, the Defence contended that this was not merely a case of lost evidence, but of ''“prosecuting authorities being prepared to adduce evidence which was not what it purported to be.”'' By directing Goh to depict a layout he had no direct knowledge of, ASP Tang had ''“essentially doctored evidence”'' to mislead the court. | ||
=== Independent Valuation of Alleged Stolen Items === | |||
During the trial, Parti’s lawyer, Anil Balchandani, cross-examined Investigating Officer (IO) Assistant Superintendent (ASP) Tang Ru Long about the valuation of the 144 allegedly stolen items. | |||
ASP Tang admitted that he had not assessed the value of the items himself but had instead taken the figures from the Liew family—Liew Mun Leong, Karl Liew, Liew Cheng May, and Heather Lim—without requiring any supporting documentation. | |||
When further questioned, ASP Tang also confirmed that he had not verified whether the items were original or counterfeit. This was particularly significant in the case of high-value watches listed in the charge sheet, as later expert testimony revealed major discrepancies. | |||
==== Expert Testimony on Valuation Discrepancies ==== | |||
* '''Gerald Genta Watch''' | |||
** Karl Liew claimed the watch was worth '''S$25,000''', but an independent horologist valued it at '''no more than S$500''', given its poor condition. | |||
** Despite this, '''District Judge Olivia Low''' only reduced its value to '''S$10,000''' instead of accepting the expert’s assessment. | |||
* '''Helix Watch''' | |||
** Karl Liew valued this at '''S$50''', but horologist '''Eric Ong''', founder of Bonfield, testified that it was a '''door gift with no value'''. | |||
* '''Vacheron Constantin Watch''' | |||
** Ong determined this was a '''counterfeit''' and stated that '''Vacheron Constantin does not manufacture this model''', meaning it had no legitimate market value. | |||
* '''Swatch Watch''' | |||
** Similarly, a '''Swatch watch valued at S$75''' by Liew Cheng May was also found to be '''a counterfeit with no value'''. | |||
=== The Knives: The Pink Knife & the Black-Handled 'Jarmay' Knife === | === The Knives: The Pink Knife & the Black-Handled 'Jarmay' Knife === | ||
| Line 122: | Line 141: | ||
Karl was unable to specify where these utensils were stored in the house after their alleged arrival from the UK. His mother, Mdm Ng Lai Peng (Mrs. Liew), testified that Parti had helped pack Karl’s utensils when he returned in 2002. However, Parti only started working for the Liew family in 2007—five years later—making it impossible for her to have been involved. Despite this, Mrs. Liew insisted on her claim, even when confronted with the timeline inconsistency. | Karl was unable to specify where these utensils were stored in the house after their alleged arrival from the UK. His mother, Mdm Ng Lai Peng (Mrs. Liew), testified that Parti had helped pack Karl’s utensils when he returned in 2002. However, Parti only started working for the Liew family in 2007—five years later—making it impossible for her to have been involved. Despite this, Mrs. Liew insisted on her claim, even when confronted with the timeline inconsistency. | ||
==== | ==== The Black-Handled Knife: Expert Testimony Contradicts Karl Liew ==== | ||
Defence counsel traced the black-handled knife to Jarmay Enterprises, a kitchenware manufacturer. Ms. Teo, the company’s owner, testified that it was ''“impossible”'' for the knife to have been made before 2006, as Jarmay only began producing it that year. This directly contradicted Karl’s claim that he had purchased the knife before 2002 in Wales. | Defence counsel traced the black-handled knife to Jarmay Enterprises, a kitchenware manufacturer. Ms. Teo, the company’s owner, testified that it was ''“impossible”'' for the knife to have been made before 2006, as Jarmay only began producing it that year. This directly contradicted Karl’s claim that he had purchased the knife before 2002 in Wales. | ||
==== | ==== The Pink Knife: Karl’s Own Contradiction ==== | ||
During cross-examination, Karl ''agreed'' that the pink knife could not have been produced before 2002. He reaffirmed this during re-examination, despite having earlier testified that he bought all the utensils while studying in the UK and shipped them to Singapore in 2002. As the Defence pointed out, ''“on Karl’s own evidence, the pink knife was not in his possession, and by deduction, all the other items in P1-14 could not have been with him.”'' | During cross-examination, Karl ''agreed'' that the pink knife could not have been produced before 2002. He reaffirmed this during re-examination, despite having earlier testified that he bought all the utensils while studying in the UK and shipped them to Singapore in 2002. As the Defence pointed out, ''“on Karl’s own evidence, the pink knife was not in his possession, and by deduction, all the other items in P1-14 could not have been with him.”'' | ||
| Line 139: | Line 158: | ||
=== Reasons why Parti's conviction was invalidated. === | === Reasons why Parti's conviction was invalidated. === | ||
==== | ==== Improper Motive by the Liew Family ==== | ||
* Justice Chan found reason to believe that Parti’s sudden termination and subsequent police report were linked to her threat to lodge a complaint with the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) about being illegally deployed to clean Karl Liew’s house and office. | * Justice Chan found reason to believe that Parti’s sudden termination and subsequent police report were linked to her threat to lodge a complaint with the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) about being illegally deployed to clean Karl Liew’s house and office. | ||
* The police report was filed on 30 October 2016—just two days after she expressed her intent to complain, suggesting a preemptive move to prevent her from returning to Singapore. | * The police report was filed on 30 October 2016—just two days after she expressed her intent to complain, suggesting a preemptive move to prevent her from returning to Singapore. | ||
* The Prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no improper motive in making the police report. | * The Prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that there was no improper motive in making the police report. | ||
==== | ==== Break in Chain of Custody of Evidence ==== | ||
* After Parti left, the Liew family went through her belongings and removed items before reporting them to the police. | * After Parti left, the Liew family went through her belongings and removed items before reporting them to the police. | ||
* The police did not seize the allegedly stolen items immediately but instead allowed the Liews to continue using them.<ref>https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2020/09/17/parti-liyani-case-police-discovered-stolen-items-were-still-with-liews-when-parti-was-arrested-at-airport/</ref> | * The police did not seize the allegedly stolen items immediately but instead allowed the Liews to continue using them.<ref>https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2020/09/17/parti-liyani-case-police-discovered-stolen-items-were-still-with-liews-when-parti-was-arrested-at-airport/</ref> | ||
* Items were only taken into police custody on 18 April 2018—nearly 18 months after the report—creating doubts about contamination or misidentification. | * Items were only taken into police custody on 18 April 2018—nearly 18 months after the report—creating doubts about contamination or misidentification. | ||
==== | ==== Lack of Proper Translation for Statements ==== | ||
* Parti’s initial statements were recorded without a Bahasa Indonesia interpreter. Instead, she was interviewed in a mix of English and Bahasa Melayu, which are not her native language.<ref>https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2020/11/07/parti-liyani-case-translation-during-police-interview-one-of-many-factors-in-justice-chans-decision-to-acquit-her-of-theft-charges/</ref> | * Parti’s initial statements were recorded without a Bahasa Indonesia interpreter. Instead, she was interviewed in a mix of English and Bahasa Melayu, which are not her native language.<ref>https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2020/11/07/parti-liyani-case-translation-during-police-interview-one-of-many-factors-in-justice-chans-decision-to-acquit-her-of-theft-charges/</ref> | ||
* There were inconsistencies in how statements were read back to her, raising doubts about whether she fully understood or agreed with them. | * There were inconsistencies in how statements were read back to her, raising doubts about whether she fully understood or agreed with them. | ||
==== | ==== Karl Liew’s Lack of Credibility ==== | ||
* Karl’s testimony was inconsistent, and he had previously been found to be a dishonest witness in a separate civil case.<ref>https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2020/09/11/parti-liyani-case-defence-was-prevented-from-confirming-with-karl-liews-mother-that-he-does-sometimes-wear-womens-clothes-as-he-claimed/</ref> | * Karl’s testimony was inconsistent, and he had previously been found to be a dishonest witness in a separate civil case.<ref>https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2020/09/11/parti-liyani-case-defence-was-prevented-from-confirming-with-karl-liews-mother-that-he-does-sometimes-wear-womens-clothes-as-he-claimed/</ref> | ||
* He claimed ownership of women’s clothing and accessories in an apparent attempt to incriminate Parti, later justifying this by saying he sometimes wore women’s T-shirts. | * He claimed ownership of women’s clothing and accessories in an apparent attempt to incriminate Parti, later justifying this by saying he sometimes wore women’s T-shirts. | ||
==== | ==== Unclear Ownership and Valuation of Items ==== | ||
* Several items listed as stolen were discarded or unused by the Liew family, casting doubt on whether Parti had truly stolen them. | * Several items listed as stolen were discarded or unused by the Liew family, casting doubt on whether Parti had truly stolen them. | ||
* The Pioneer DVD player, a key piece of evidence, was found to be faulty, contradicting the prosecution’s claim that it was in working condition and had value. | * The Pioneer DVD player, a key piece of evidence, was found to be faulty, contradicting the prosecution’s claim that it was in working condition and had value. | ||
* The trial judge did not sufficiently consider Parti’s explanations that some items were either gifted to her or found discarded. | * The trial judge did not sufficiently consider Parti’s explanations that some items were either gifted to her or found discarded. | ||
==== | ==== Parti’s Lack of Concern Over Missing Boxes ==== | ||
* The lower court inferred guilt from the fact that Parti did not inquire about the fate of her boxes while she was in Indonesia. | * The lower court inferred guilt from the fact that Parti did not inquire about the fate of her boxes while she was in Indonesia. | ||
* Justice Chan found this reasoning flawed, as the boxes contained many of her own items as well, making her supposed lack of concern ambiguous. | * Justice Chan found this reasoning flawed, as the boxes contained many of her own items as well, making her supposed lack of concern ambiguous. | ||
==== | ==== Failure to Prove Guilt Beyond a Reasonable Doubt ==== | ||
* The prosecution did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that Parti had intentionally stolen the items. | * The prosecution did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that Parti had intentionally stolen the items. | ||
* Justice Chan ruled that the various inconsistencies, improper motives, and weak evidence made the conviction unsafe. | * Justice Chan ruled that the various inconsistencies, improper motives, and weak evidence made the conviction unsafe. | ||
| Line 173: | Line 192: | ||
== Impact of Parti's life == | == Impact of Parti's life == | ||
[[File:Parti Liyani Anil Balchandani .png|thumb|Parti Liyani and Anil Balchandani]] | |||
In [https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2023/04/14/victim-impact-statement-by-parti-liyani-the-impact-of-false-accusations-and-unjust-imprisonment-on-my-life/ a public statement] on 13 April 2023, Parti expressed her experiences and hardships following the legal case against her. | In [https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2023/04/14/victim-impact-statement-by-parti-liyani-the-impact-of-false-accusations-and-unjust-imprisonment-on-my-life/ a public statement] on 13 April 2023, Parti expressed her experiences and hardships following the legal case against her. | ||
| Line 201: | Line 221: | ||
According to the defence counsel:<blockquote>“I was very impressed by Parti’s resolve. Because someone in her shoes generally faces more than just the pressure from the legal system. There is a family she has to take care of, probably living expenses in Singapore and just the inability to talk to anybody… She could’ve restarted her life, continued working in another country and just thought about what happened in October 2016 as a bad dream.”<ref>HOME. "[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4Az5koGHKo Interview with Anil Balchandani, Parti Liyani’s Defence Lawyer]". ''YouTube''. September 9, 2020. Accessed on 6 October 2020.</ref></blockquote> | According to the defence counsel:<blockquote>“I was very impressed by Parti’s resolve. Because someone in her shoes generally faces more than just the pressure from the legal system. There is a family she has to take care of, probably living expenses in Singapore and just the inability to talk to anybody… She could’ve restarted her life, continued working in another country and just thought about what happened in October 2016 as a bad dream.”<ref>HOME. "[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4Az5koGHKo Interview with Anil Balchandani, Parti Liyani’s Defence Lawyer]". ''YouTube''. September 9, 2020. Accessed on 6 October 2020.</ref></blockquote> | ||
==Aftermath== | ==Aftermath== | ||
In September 2020, HOME raised over S$28,000 has been raised via an online fundraiser on Giving.sg for Parti — meeting the target sum within just a day.<ref>https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2020/09/07/fundraiser-for-parti-liyani-meets-target-of-28000-within-just-a-day/</ref> | |||
The amount raised is meant to help Parti rebuild her life and realise her dreams, and allow her to support herself and her family in a sustained way. | |||
In January 2021, it was reported that Parti would be returning home to Indonesia permanently following her acquittal in September 2020.<ref name=":3" /> | |||
District Judge Olivia Low who had presided over Parti's case and judged her as guilty was later employed in the Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) as a Deputy Senior State Counsel in the Civil Division.<ref>https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2020/09/16/district-judge-olivia-low-now-in-agc-as-deputy-senior-state-counsel/</ref> | |||
=== Resignation of Liew Mun Leong === | === Resignation of Liew Mun Leong === | ||
On 10 September 2020, Liew Mun Leong made an announcement that he would retire from his public service and business roles at Changi Airport Group, Surbana Jurong, Temasek Foundation, and Temasek International.<ref>https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2020/09/10/cag-chairman-liew-mun-leong-to-retire-from-his-various-public-service-and-business-roles/</ref> | On 10 September 2020, Liew Mun Leong made an announcement that he would retire from his public service and business roles at Changi Airport Group, Surbana Jurong, Temasek Foundation, and Temasek International.<ref>https://www.theonlinecitizen.com/2020/09/10/cag-chairman-liew-mun-leong-to-retire-from-his-various-public-service-and-business-roles/</ref> | ||
| Line 226: | Line 252: | ||
Separately, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon had earlier allowed Parti’s complaint against the two DPPs in her trial to proceed. CJ Menon noted that Parti ''"contends that the DPPs had, in their conduct of the trial, concealed material facts and thereby created the false impression that the device was fully functional,"'' which undermined her credibility at trial. | Separately, Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon had earlier allowed Parti’s complaint against the two DPPs in her trial to proceed. CJ Menon noted that Parti ''"contends that the DPPs had, in their conduct of the trial, concealed material facts and thereby created the false impression that the device was fully functional,"'' which undermined her credibility at trial. | ||
=== | === Parliamentary Response to Allegations in Parti Liyani’s Case === | ||
During the parliamentary debate on Parti Liyani’s case, Minister for Home Affairs and Law K Shanmugam addressed concerns over potential misconduct by law enforcement and prosecutorial bias.<ref>https://sprs.parl.gov.sg/search/#/sprs3topic?reportid=ministerial-statement-1529</ref> | |||
He rejected claims that Parti’s prosecution was influenced by her former employer, Liew Mun Leong, emphasizing that there was no improper interference in the case. | |||
Shanmugam stated that the police and Attorney-General’s Chambers (AGC) had acted in accordance with legal procedures, and that errors in handling the case did not amount to deliberate wrongdoing. | |||
==== Defending the AGC and Police Handling ==== | |||
Shanmugam explained that the police and AGC had relied on the evidence available at the time and that Parti’s conviction in the lower court was based on legal assessments made then. | |||
While acknowledging that the High Court later overturned the conviction, he argued that prosecutors were not acting maliciously and that the legal process had worked as intended—by correcting errors at the appeal stage. | |||
In | ==== Addressing Allegations of Bias and Police Mistakes ==== | ||
In response to criticism that the police had failed to independently verify the value of the stolen items and secure evidence in a timely manner, Shanmugam conceded that there were lapses but maintained that these did not indicate any deliberate attempt to frame Parti. | |||
He stressed that the chain of custody issues were procedural weaknesses rather than evidence of systemic failure. He also dismissed allegations that Parti was unfairly treated because she was a foreign domestic worker, reiterating that Singapore’s legal system does not differentiate based on social or economic status. | |||
==== AGC’s Internal Review and Conclusion ==== | |||
At the time of the debate, Shanmugam confirmed that the AGC was reviewing the case to assess whether any disciplinary action was necessary against prosecutors involved. | |||
However, no immediate wrongdoing was found. As of today, the case has been closed with no further action taken against the prosecutors or investigating officers. | |||
== References == | |||
{{Reflist}} | |||
Repository of information about Parti Liyani’s case - https://partiliyani.weebly.com/ | Repository of information about Parti Liyani’s case - https://partiliyani.weebly.com/ | ||
Notes of evidence for the hearing - | Notes of evidence for the hearing - | ||
[[category:Court-cases Lawsuits]] | |||