Before the legal dust even settles on Parti’s case, controversy from a nearby front is brewing.
Recall the acquittal of the maid accused of theft of stolen items from the wealthy household of the Liew family? And the questionable motive of the Liew family for sacking Parti, giving her just 2 hours to pack, which led to her 4 years legal ordeal?
Well, the news today is about the recusal of the AG Lucien Wong from reviewing into Parti’s case. Hri Kumar Nair will now lead the review process. He is Deputy AG.
The reason for Lucien’s recusal is that there is a back story (or history) between him and Liew Mun Leong, the current chairman of Changi Airport Group, who had lodged a police report against Parti.
For a period of time, Lucien sat on the board of directors of CapitaLand “while Mr Liew was president and chief executive of the company.” So, at the very least, they knew each other, and were friends to some extent.
Subsequently, Lucien stepped down from the board in January 2006. Eleven years later, he was appointed Attorney General in 2017.. Coincidentally, that was also when the investigation of Parti’s case started.
Lucien was therefore AG for throughout the case, but he nevertheless came forward to clarify that he was not involved in any prosecutorial decisions in the case. Neither was Hri Kumar involved in the same.
Honestly, without any further details on that statement as reported, it is difficult to understand the scope and depth of what prosecutorial decisions entail. The general public will not know what that means specifically.
Does that mean that both of them had never given the green light to prefer the charges against Parti? Or, does that mean they did not review the case at crucial intervals, provide guidance and direction, and exercise the discretion in selecting the prosecutorial team to establish the 4 charges against Parti? Or, does that mean they were not consulted at all on the case along the way, especially the events leading up to the trial, the trial proper, and the appeal?
I guess we have to take at face value what the office of the Attorney-General has said in their public statement, and rely on their good judgment.
But it doesn’t stop there. There is another part of the AG statement that reads: “A-G Lucien Wong and Mr Liew did not have a personal relationship, and this continues today.”
At this juncture, I really don’t know whether that is a preemptive measure by the AG to address some strong sentiments on the ground about the Parti’s case, especially regarding the break in the chain of evidence and the conduct of the prosecution in respect of the DVD player.
Mind you, this DVD issue is no small issue. If you want to know the full context, and pardon me for the length, here is what transpired at the trial below in the cross examination of Parti -
“Q: So if you don’t know what is wrong with this player, how do you know that you’ll be able to get it fixed?
A: Because Mrs. Liew said this is spoiled so I just think it can be repaired.
Q: And you didn’t ask Mrs. Liew for further details?
A: No.
...
Q: Mrs. Liew has said in Court that the DVD player was working the last time she saw it. What do you have to say?
A: Disagree. ...”
At this point, the DPP asked for permission to connect DVD player to the monitor to play it.
“Court: No, I don’t think you can turn it the other way but what’s--- what’s your point? You want to show what it works, is it?
[DPP]: Yes.
Q: Ms. Liyani, the---sorry, for the record, the DVD player is connected to the monitor at the---oh, sorry, at the Prosecution’s desk area. You---
...
Q: So you are able to see the picture on the screen, Ms. Liyani?
A: Yes, I can see.
[DPP]: ... For the record we have connected P19 to the monitor via a HDMI cable and we have then powered on the DVD player and we pressed play and there were images which were shown on the monitor which came from this P19.
Balchandani: But where is it---what is playing?
Court: Okay, well, perhaps put it the other way. You didn’t insert anything into the DVD player before this, is that right?
[DPP]: No, Your Honour.
Court: Okay, right. Okay.
[DPP]: Alright---and Your Honour, I am---okay, so, okay.
Q: So, you agree---I mean, so you see that the DVD player is working, isn’t it?
A: Only now I realised, before that, I wouldn’t know.
Q: So I put it to you that you were lying that Mrs. Liew gave you this DVD player and told you that it was spoilt.
A: Disagree.
Q: I put it to you that you stole P19.
A: I did not steal this---I have---I am a poor person but my mother never teach me to steal. Even my deceased father never teach me to steal. If I steal, I would have already brought it home, why is it still around?”
Well, Parti did have a point there. If she had stolen, why would she have packed it all up in three boxes, so conspicuously, and then asked Karl Liew to ship it back for her?
But the point of the cross-examination is to demonstrate that the DVD player was not in any way “spoilt”. So, there was no reason to discard it. That was the casual link to the charge against Parti for theft, that is, “no spoil, no throw” and if so, you stole.
But that incomplete demonstration tripped Parti, and that accounted for what she had said in defence: “I did not steal this---I have---I am a poor person but my mother never teach me to steal. Even my deceased father never teach me to steal.”
But, why incomplete demonstration?
Well, upon appeal, the High Court judge allowed Anil to demonstrate the DVD player and “when the DVD player was switched to the “DVD player mode” with a DVD inserted into the DVD player, the error message “could not initialise disc” was displayed.””
The judge then remarked that a DVD player that is unable to play DVD “can be reasonably described as “spoilt””.
And here is what the prosecution had to say: -
“On appeal, the Prosecution conceded and agreed with the Defence that during the trial below, there were already difficulties with the functionality of the Pioneer DVD player in playing the DVD disc but not in playing the recorded clip in the hard drive of the DVD player.”
The High Court Judge then said that “the fact that the said Pioneer DVD player was only partially functioning (ie, it was able to play videos from the hard disk component, but not able to play a DVD) was not disclosed or clarified by the Prosecution during their cross-examination of Parti at the trial below.”
This incomplete demonstration was clearly unfair to Parti. You must imagine that it was her against the Goliath-like prosecutorial machination, and she only had a pro bono lawyer to fight it out at trial, and appeal.
So, to put it mildly, the “incomplete demonstration” caught her by surprise, as Mrs Liew had previously told her that the DVD player was not working.
This led the High Court judge to opine this: “In the judgment (below), the Judge did not address the veracity of Mr Anil’s allegations against the Prosecution’s “sleight-of-hand” technique to demonstrate in court that the Pioneer DVD player was working.”
So, going back to the statement that Lucien and Liew “did not have a personal relationship, and this continues today,” it unfortunately leaves one wondering, what does “personal relationship” mean?
As a layman, I would have wish for more information on that. Were they even friends? How impersonal or arm’s length was their relationship?
For, mind you, they did sit on the same board, and surely there should have been some interaction, right? Exchange of ideas?
He was also a well-known and competent lawyer, who specialisd in banking, corporate and financial services work. And Liew’s business in CapitaLand ought to have some dealings in the financial and banking areas too?
So, did Liew consult Lucien during the latter’s stint in the board, and/or after he stepped down, when he - as LHY puts it - became LHL’s personal lawyer in Oxley affair?
While I can understand Lucien’s decision to recuse himself from the review due to his past board dealing with Liew, because fairness/justice has to be seen to be done, I nevertheless felt that since Lucien is appointing his deputy to review the department under his charge, wouldn’t it be wiser to set up a separate independent inquiry so that it removes all doubts or suspicion, if any, as this case requires not only accountability (as the Law Minister puts it) of what Justice Chan had said about “improper motive”, but it also requires the public to be assured and persuaded that it is done above board (pun unintended)?
That is just my view. Cheerz.
No comments:
Post a Comment