Senior counsel to represent DPPs at disciplinary hearings

Two deputy public prosecutors (DPPs) who are facing a misconduct complaint by former domestic helper Parti Liyani have each engaged senior counsel to represent them in disciplinary proceedings.

An Attorney-General's Chambers (AGC) spokesman, in response to queries from The Straits Times, said on Thursday that Ms Tan Yanying has engaged Senior Counsel Davinder Singh from Davinder Singh Chambers, while Mr Tan Wee Hao's lawyer is Senior Counsel Jason Chan from Allen & Gledhill.

Their appointments follow Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon giving the go-ahead in October for disciplinary investigations to start into the way the two DPPs had handled Ms Parti's theft trial.

She had been accused of stealing $34,000 worth of items from her former employer Liew Mun Leong, a prominent businessman, who resigned as chairman of Changi Airport Group among other positions following public outcry after Ms Parti was acquitted on appeal.

The two-member disciplinary tribunal is appointed by the Chief Justice and the hearings are expected to start next year.

Lawyers Peter Low and Choo Zheng Xi are representing Ms Parti in the disciplinary proceedings, at which her lawyer in the criminal trial, Mr Anil Balchandani, could be a witness.

In the criminal trial that ended in the State Courts last year, Ms Parti, now 46, had been charged with stealing, among other things, a Pioneer DVD player.

On appeal, the High Court earlier this year found the DVD player to be faulty. This, plus other doubts raised about the prosecution case, led to her being acquitted of all charges in the High Court.

During the district court trial, the DPPs had shown Ms Parti that the DVD player could play a video digitally stored in the hard disk. But at the appeal, it was shown that the device could not play DVDs.

In his decision grounds issued in October allowing the application for the probe to proceed, the Chief Justice said he was "satisfied there is a prima facie case that the DPPs' conduct might suggest a lack of candour and this may have resulted in the applicant being cross examined unfairly, and in the applicant and the court being misled".

The Chief Justice had found that the DPPs had reason to think there were issues with the DVD player's functionality and this was not made known to the trial judge, Ms Parti or her lawyer, Mr Balchandani.

He also made clear that, in granting leave to investigate the DPPs, he had not regarded any defences the DPPs may raise and had not considered any specific explanation the DPPs may have that could explain their conduct and even exculpate them.

The AGC spokesman, in explaining why the DPPs are represented by lawyers from the Bar in the pending probe and not counsel from the AGC, said the Legal Profession (Disciplinary Tribunal) Rules governing the disciplinary tribunal proceedings do not allow state counsel to represent the DPPs.

It is understood that under S7(1) of the rules, the respondent before the tribunal may be represented by a solicitor. State counsel are legal service officers and not solicitors, based on the Legal Profession Act.

The spokesman added: "Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon had allowed state counsel to be present at court proceedings for the leave stage to render any assistance to the court where appropriate, and to enable the DPPs to understand the complaint that was being made against them."