Parti Liyani seeks compensation from AGC for 'frivolous or vexatious' prosecution

SINGAPORE - Former domestic worker Parti Liyani, an Indonesian who was acquitted in a high-profile case last year of stealing from her then-employer, is making an unprecedented bid to seek compensation from the Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC).

She is the first person to be making an application for compensation under Section 359(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which was introduced in 2010, prosecutors told the High Court on Friday (April 16).

The provision states that if an accused is acquitted of any charge, and if it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that the prosecution was frivolous or vexatious, the court may order a compensation sum of up to $10,000.

In court documents, Ms Parti quantified her losses at $73,100 - including $37,500 in foregone salary, pay increments and "hong bao", and $29,400 for lodging provided by non-governmental group Humanitarian Organisation for Migration Economics (Home).

The group housed her at its shelter from December 2016 until she returned to Indonesia in January2021.

Despite the limit on the sum she can potentially receive, Ms Parti has decided to seek compensation from the AGC instead of her former employer, prominent businessman Liew Mun Leong.

On Friday, arguments before the High Court on the issue of compensation dwelt on legal issues, in particular, the meaning of what constitutes "frivolous or vexatious".

Deputy Public Prosecutor Mohamed Faizal argued that Ms Parti's application must be dismissed as her arguments fell "woefully short of showing that the decision to prosecute was frivolous or vexatious".

Read Also

singapore

AGC had sufficient evidence to prosecute Parti Liyani, says Shanmugam

He argued that from the wording of the provision, case law and parliamentary debates, the threshold test to prove "frivolous or vexatious" was extremely high.

He argued that it was necessary to prove that there was "dishonesty or malice" on the prosecution's part.

The prosecutor argued that the case brought against Ms Parti was "not obviously unsustainable or wrong" as there was more than sufficient justification for the decision to prosecute her.

This included the accounts from members of the Liew family and Ms Parti's own admission that she had taken some items without consent.

He argued that Section 359(3) was meant to provide a convenient and rapid route to obtaining compensation which should ordinarily be pursued through a civil claim for malicious prosecution.

However, Ms Parti's lawyer, Mr Anil Balchandani, argued that it was not necessary to prove malice.

"What the prosecution is attempting to have this court decide upon, when they say malice should be included in the test, is allowing the prosecution two bites of the cherry, one in the criminal court and two, in the civil court," he said.

Ms Parti, who worked for the Liews for nine years, was sacked on Oct 28 2016 while Mr Liew was overseas. She packed various items into three boxes and returned to Indonesia.

Two days later, Mr Liew Mun Leong and his son Karl made a police report after the family opened the boxes which the younger man had agreed to ship to her.

Ms Parti was arrested after she returned to Singapore in December that year.

She was charged with stealing more than $50,000 worth of items, including luxury watches and brand-name bags.

She fought the charges in a trial that stretched over more than 20 days and, at the end, the district judge convicted her but reduced the value of the items to $34,000. She was sentenced to 26 months' jail.

Ms Parti appealed to the High Court.

Last September, Justice Chan Seng Onn acquitted her of all four charges after concluding that the convictions were unsafe.

After her acquittal, Ms Parti sought compensation for losses incurred and pressed on with a disciplinary complaint she had earlier made against the two prosecutors who conducted her trial.

The complaint is scheduled to be heard by a disciplinary tribunal in September.

This article was first published in The Straits Times. Permission required for reproduction.