“What about Karl Liew?” Netizens react to the dismissal of Parti Liyani’s bid for compensation from AGC

Singapore — Netizens have had mixed reactions to the High Court decision dismissal of Indonesian domestic worker Parti Liyani’s appeal for compensation from the Attorney-General’s Chambers.

High Court Judge Chan Seng Onn said on Monday (Jun 21) that Ms Parti had not been able to prove that her prosecution was “frivolous or vexatious”.

While reactions from Singaporeans online have been mixed, with some feeling that she deserved compensations and others saying she should not, some netizens have bought up Mr Karl Liew and the Liew family, her former employers.

Ms Parti made the news last year after her conviction for theft was overturned in a high-profile case, as she had been employed by the former chairman of Changi Airport Group, Mr Liew Mun Leong.

Part of the fallout from her acquittal was the resignation of Mr Liew from CAG’s chairmanship.

Last year, on Sept 4, Justice Chan released the ruling that acquitted Ms Parti. She took to court later that month to seek disciplinary proceedings against the prosecutors in her case.

However, in his ruling on Monday, the judge said, “The decision to bring the charges against Parti was based on sufficient evidence such that there is a case fit to bring before the court,” and added that she had not “established at any time during the proceedings that there were any new developments such that her prosecution ought to have been immediately discontinued mid-way through the trial.”

Ms Parti’s application to seek compensation from the AGC involved in her case under Section 359(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code would have been the first of its kind in Singapore had it been allowed to proceed.

The judge pointed out that according to the country’s criminal justice system, it is not the case that the right to compensation is entitled to people who have been acquitted.

“A prosecution that is brought or continued against an accused person in good faith and with sufficient evidence… does not become a ‘frivolous or vexatious’ prosecution simply because the prosecutor’s conduct at the proceedings is unacceptable,” said Justice Chan.

Netizens have had mixed reactions to the dismissal of Ms Parti’s application, with some agreeing with the judge’s decision, while others called it unjust.

Others pointed out that Ms Parti admitted that she took some items from her employer, though this should not have much bearing on the judge’s decision on the interpretation of Section 359(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

Still, others brought up the Liew family.

/TISG

Read also: Parti Liyani case: Law school professor examines if a discarded item may be stolen

Parti Liyani case: Law school professor examines if a discarded item may be stolen