180 For the above reasons, I find that more than a reasonable doubt
exists as to whether May had in fact discarded these two counterfeit
watches. I believe Parti’s evidence and find it more likely than not
that she found the Vacheron Constantin watch and the Swatch watch in
May’s trash. I do not believe May’s testimony that she had not discarded
the two counterfeit watches that she had purchased. Accordingly, I
overturn Parti’s conviction on the 3rd charge in relation to the theft
of the two counterfeit watches.” (Justice Chan Seng Onn's judgement)
Ms Liyani was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment for allegedly stealing the two counterfeit watches together with a ring, earrings and some fashion accessories valued at the total sum of $300. She was acquitted on appeal.
I would like to know what Minister K Shanmugam has to say about Justice Chan Seng Onn’s acquittal of Ms Liyani on this charge.
As an ordinary person, I wonder why the prosecutor chose to proceed with the charge of theft of counterfeit watches.
Poor people may find it a thrill to possess a counterfeit watch but for the wealthy, well, maybe they too find it a thrill to do so. But why do the police and prosecutor bother to charge a poor domestic worker with stealing counterfeit watches?
Shouldn’t they consider saving the time of judges and defence counsel? Don’t they have a duty to save taxpayers’ money and act in the interest of the public?...
Teo Soh Lung
Above is Teo Soh Lung's comment about the need to charge a maid for stealing counterfeit watches and fashion accessories worth $300. Parti was acquitted by Justice Chan from these charges on grounds of reasonable doubts as to whether the cheap fake items were discarded by the owner.
Teo Soh Lung questioned the need to waste the court's time on something so trivial. But some may say a crime is a crime, big or so does not matter. In this case there is the additional aspect of doubts raised by Justice Chan that the owner, very rich people, with high social status, discarding cheap counterfeits.
Oh, during the earlier trials, owner admitted buying fake from roadside vendor and watch expert also attested that the watches were fakes. Why didn't the owner of the fake watches withdraw the charges? Would it not be very embarrassing and petty to buy fake watches and accused a maid of stealing cheap and broken down fake watches? Fake watches are practically worthless, broken fake watches?
Some may find it too harsh to jail Parti for 6 months over this $300 theft even if it is a proven fact. Some may agree with Teo Soh Lung that this case should not go to court.
What do you think?
Below is a comment in Teo Soh Lung's article in the TRE that pointed to the deficiencies of this case with the district judge and the prosecutors coming under questions.
There are lawyers and there are LAWYERS……….and of course there are idiots and there are idiots………….not knowing that they as lawyers AND idiots have been taken in by Law & Home Affairs Minister K Shanmugam in his so called Parliament Statement which I hv said was a FARCE.
I suggest sinkies who want to understand better the FAILURE of the judicial system in delivering justice go through Shanmugam’s Parliament Statement found on the Home Affairs Ministry website or the Parliamentary Reports.
The issue of TRAVESTY OF JUSTICE was NEVER dealt with……….the BASIS for High Court appeal judgment by Justice Chan for which Shanmugam had implied was deficient, was ACTUALLY in accordance with the Court of Appeal judgments which he had cited in his Parliament Statement [232] Mohamed Affandi bin Rosli v PP & anor [2019] 1 SLR 440 and [233]PP v GCK [2020] SCGA 2, the latter should have been Public Prosecutor v GCK and another matter [2020] SGCA 2, where at [12] of the summary of the judgment, inter alia, stated thus:
The principle of proof beyond a reasonable doubt could be conceptualised in two ways:
a. …..Once the court had identified the flaw internal to the Prosecution’s case, weaknesses in the Defence’s case could not ordinarily shore up what was lacking in the Prosecution’s case to begin with because the Prosecution had simply not been able to discharge its overall legal burden (at [134], [137], [142], [149(e)] and [149(f)]).
b. ….In order to find a reasonable doubt in the Prosecution’s case on
the totality of the evidence, the court had to articulate the specific
doubt that had arisen in the Prosecution’s case and ground it with
reference to the evidence (at [143], [144], [147], [149(g)], [149(h)]
and [149(j)]).
—
So the Minister toking cok about his Ministry & AGC’s investigation
after the HC judgment bears NO impact on Justice Chan’s judgment.
I, for one, did not even harbour any notion that Liew Mun Leong had exerted any influence on the outcome of the case, nor, in my opinion, did SMU law Assoc Professor Eugene Tan (in the TODAY newspaper) nor Mr Harpreet Singh Nehal SC in the Straits Times…….nor I think most sinkies. I believe our common concern was the conduct of District Judge Olivia Low for failing to discharge her judicial duties FAITHFULLY, in contravention of her oath of office under the First Schedule of the State Courts Act………….as I hv posted, even the CJ has implicitly criticised Olivia Low in the CJ’s judgment allowing Ms Liyani’s application to have the two DPPs who prosecuted her to face a Disciplinary Tribunal.
Neither of the legal issues pertaining to District Judge Olivia Low nor the 2 DPPs was dealt with in Shanmugam’s Parliament Statement………a point NOT raised by the wayang party’s MP, PSP’s NCMPs nor the white monkeys…..at least I have not read of it.
