The case of the Maid vs the Chairman is again being talked about today. This time, a senior lawyer, Harpreet Singh Nehal, is taking up the justice’s baton to highlight some areas that are of particular concern to him.
Harpreet has written a blow-by-blow account of what went wrong in the much-ventilated case. He said: “Errors appear to have occurred at every level of the system, from the initial police investigation to the prosecutors’ decision to charge Ms Parti, an Indonesian domestic worker accused of stealing from her employer, prominent business chief Liew Mum Leong; to the handling of the case at trial and the lower court’s finding of guilt.”
I know this has been said and written about before, at the risk of flogging a dead horse, but for the sake of public perception, especially in a highly unequal society, the high horse on the issue of elitism and class prejudice is still very much alive and kicking. At times, the floggings are seen as no more as a slap on the behind rather than one calling for the top to give a proper and thorough account.
Harpreet raised some good, credible points. He did a brief CSI and traced the steps of errors taken (and at times, allowed to be indulged) by the whole machination of the justice system. It is a long, detailed article, but let me do a quick rundown.
If the main issue with this case is that of the broken chain of evidence collecting, then this trail has a genesis all the way up to the AGC.
First, it took 1.5 years to take the about 150 allegedly stolen items into police custody. We all know that. It is very much a public fact. And why the police took so long to do what I believe their protocol would have mandated them to do to the contrary is a mystery at this present moment.
Well, they did record the items, but that took time too, a few weeks. In the meantime, the Liew household were allowed to use the items as and when they wanted it. And this part here is rather curious: Was it because Parti has left the country? As such, there’s no rush?
Or, the more disconcerting part is, did the unconscious influence of the Liews have a part to play?
Mind you, such bias is not wholly intentional, but essentially underlying, by reason that we often place those high up on the pedestal of trust, faith and hope. It is the same way we are less suspicious of religious leaders, and would never think that they would commit sexual and/or financial abuses.
If that is the case, and if we really address it wholeheartedly, then, I suspect the issue is more systemic than just one-off. There is thus more than meets the eye about our unequal society, causing a wedge between the have and have-not, both economically and socially.
Then, there is the question of Parti’s statements to the police. She said it was not properly interpreted to her, in a mix of English and Malay. She could not follow fully.
Well, I believe that happens, at times. But following the trail to the next level, shouldn’t the prosecutor have caught up with it? That is, the possible contamination of the evidential chain and the lack of proper interpretation? Were the police investigators questioned about it? Did the seniors at AGC have a shot at it, and offer their unbiased, honest view?
Now, let’s be fair. Human errors abound. We all make mistakes. It is expected, even to the best of us. This case may be one of inadvertent oversight, and I can understand that. It may even be occasional incompetence. I can sympathise.
But, to carry things this far, even up to the appeal stage, with such insistence of guilt, unfortunately gives the public impression that the prosecutors’ job is to convict, period; instead of pursuing justice even to places where one may not want to confront or admit.
Alas, this is no doubt a chain of assumption on my part from this case, but what kept this chain taut to some certain is the DVD issue. It is what the Justice Chan had described as a “sleight-of-hand” by the prosecutor to only present evidence in a light that supports their conviction (pun unintended) rather than to submit to the objective hand of justice.
As for the lower court judge, this is what Harpreet has to say: -
“...the burden of proof was in one instance, reversed and wrongly placed on the defence instead of the prosecution, expert evidence by the defence was ignored, and the defence was unfavourably commented on for conduct that was allowed for the prosecution. These errors were corrected on appeal.”
Like it or not, this is how things are perceived by the public. The evidential trail went from the police to the prosecutors, and then to the judge at the lower court.
According to Harpreet, the district judge has left the courts to “assume her appointment as Deputy Senior State Counsel at the AGC’s civil division.” This was done even before the parliamentary session and the review that our Law Minister has called for.
Lesson? Only one, and this is the real intent behind this post this morning. It is the protection of our social conscience.
This case of the maid fighting for her freedom (for four long years) could have just been swept under the rug. But it didn’t. Thankfully, there were and are fighters of enduring justice like HOME, Anil and many more who confronted the system with moral courage, and asked deep, searching questions.
Let me end by saying that our system is not broken - not in the way that many authoritarian and populist countries are experiencing now. It is not broken beyond redemption because, in a way, it took one justice to smoke out another in the appeal, and set things right.
As for our government, there is the assurance of a review at the highest level by our law minister. That should be comforting. So let’s hope it is a review to clear the air for all, especially Parti, in this most unfortunate case of the misdirection of justice.
No comments:
Post a Comment