Parti Liyani v Public Prosecutor: Compensation for Frivolous Prosecution under Criminal Procedure Code
In Parti Liyani v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard Parti Liyani's application for compensation under s 359(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code (CPC) following her acquittal on theft charges. The court, presided over by Chan Seng Onn J, dismissed the application, finding that the prosecution was not frivolous or vexatious. The judgment clarifies the interpretation and scope of s 359(3) of the CPC regarding compensation for acquitted individuals.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Application dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
High Court dismisses Parti Liyani's application for compensation, finding the prosecution was not frivolous or vexatious, clarifying the scope of s 359(3) CPC.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Application dismissed | Won | Kelvin Chong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Sarah Siaw of Attorney-General’s Chambers Mohamed Faizal of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Parti Liyani | Appellant | Individual | Application dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chan Seng Onn | Judge of the High Court | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Kelvin Chong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sarah Siaw | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mohamed Faizal | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Anil Narain Balchandani | Red Lion Circle |
4. Facts
- Parti Liyani was acquitted of theft charges after a trial in the lower court.
- Parti applied for a compensation order under s 359(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code.
- The High Court considered whether the prosecution was frivolous or vexatious.
- Parti argued the prosecution's conduct at trial amounted to frivolous or vexatious prosecution.
- The Prosecution argued the decision to prosecute was not frivolous or vexatious.
- The Young Amicus Curiae Scheme was used to appoint Assistant Professor of Law, Benjamin Joshua Ong.
5. Formal Citations
- Parti Liyani v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9068 of 2019/01, [2021] SGHC 146
- Public Prosecutor v Parti Liyani, , [2019] SGDC 57
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Parti Liyani employed as a foreign domestic worker in the Liew household | |
| Karl, Heather and their children moved to 39 Chancery Lane | |
| Mr Liew decided to terminate Parti’s employment | |
| Karl served the termination notice to Parti | |
| Mdm Ng, Karl and Heather checked the contents of the boxes at 49 CL | |
| Karl and Mr Liew filed a police report | |
| Parti returned to Singapore and was arrested | |
| Parti Liyani filed Magistrate’s Appeal No 9068 of 2019/01 | |
| Parti Liyani sentenced to 26 months’ imprisonment | |
| Parti Liyani acquitted of all charges | |
| Hearing | |
| Hearing | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Frivolous or Vexatious Prosecution
- Outcome: The court held that the prosecution was not frivolous or vexatious.
- Category: Substantive
- Statutory Interpretation
- Outcome: The court clarified the principles of statutory interpretation applicable in Singapore.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Compensation of $10,000.00
9. Cause of Actions
- No cause of actions
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Parti Liyani v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2020] SGHC 187 | Singapore | Sets out the facts surrounding the conviction and subsequent acquittal of the appellant. |
| Law Society of Singapore v Tan Guat Neo Phyllis | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [2008] 2 SLR(R) 239 | Singapore | Discusses the relationship between prosecutorial and judicial power. |
| Goh Cheng Chuan v PP | N/A | Yes | [1990] SLR 671 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that proceedings are subject to the control of the court. |
| Arun Kaliamurthy and others v Public Prosecutor and another matter | N/A | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 1023 | Singapore | Discusses costs orders in civil and criminal proceedings. |
| Ang Pek San Lawrence v Singapore Medical Council | Court of Three Judges | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 1179 | Singapore | Notes the rationale for limiting the power to make adverse costs orders in criminal proceedings. |
| Huang Liping v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2016] 4 SLR 716 | Singapore | Discusses the interpretation of 'frivolous or vexatious' in the context of costs orders. |
| Riduan bin Yusof v Khng Thian Huat | N/A | Yes | [2005] 2 SLR(R) 188 | Singapore | Explains what amounts to a frivolous or vexatious proceeding, or one that is an abuse of process of the court. |
| The “Bunga Melati 5” | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2012] 4 SLR 546 | Singapore | Explains 'plainly or obviously unsustainable' actions. |
| Beni Madhub Kurmi v Kumud Kumar Biswas | N/A | Yes | [1903] ILR 30 Cal 123 | India | Deals with whether compensation may be ordered in a case where the complaint was false as well as frivolous or vexatious. |
| Musammat Jaina v Santukdas and another | N/A | Yes | [1919] 54 Indian Cases 249 | India | Affirmed Beni Madhab’s observations and similarly described “frivolous” as trifling, silly, or without due foundation. |
| Bakaji v Mukundsingh and others | N/A | Yes | [1920] 55 Indian Cases 98 | India | Observed that “there seems to be no room for doubt that an accusation may be frivolous or vexatious without being wholly false”. |
| Malacca Municipality v Ng Leong Wah | N/A | No | [1973] 2 MLJ 183 | Malaysia | The court overturned an order for compensation against the prosecution. |
| Sabastian Ratnam & Thangavelu v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [1934] 1 MLJ 225 | Malaysia | Costs may be ordered against the public prosecutor if it is shown that “the prosecution was vexatious, that is, begun or continued without reasonable and probable cause”, or “frivolous”. |
| R v Mohamed Bin Sudin and Kassim Bin Abdullah | N/A | Yes | [1935] SSLR 309 | Malaysia | Costs may be ordered against the public prosecutor if it is shown that “the prosecution was vexatious, that is, begun or continued without reasonable and probable cause”, or “frivolous”. |
| Stubbs and another v The Director of Public Prosecutions | N/A | Yes | (1890) 24 QBD 577 | N/A | Costs may be ordered against the public prosecutor if it is shown that “the prosecution was vexatious, that is, begun or continued without reasonable and probable cause”, or “frivolous”. |
| Zainal bin Kuning and others v Chan Sin Mian Michael and another | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 858 | Singapore | Sets out the elements of the tort of malicious prosecution. |
| Hicks v Faulkner | N/A | Yes | (1878) 8 QBD 167 | N/A | Defines reasonable and probable cause. |
| Challenger Technologies Pte Ltd v Dennison Transoceanic Corp | N/A | Yes | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 618 | Singapore | Reasonable and probable cause is both subjective and objective. |
| Glinski v McIver | N/A | Yes | [1962] AC 726 | N/A | The degree of guilt believed by the prosecutor need not extend to a belief that the accused would be convicted but simply whether there is a case fit to be tried. |
| Attorney-General v Ting Choon Meng and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 1 SLR 373 | Singapore | Each statutory context may target different mischief and Parliament may well use the same phrase to mean different things. |
| Tan Cheng Bock v Attorney-General | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] 2 SLR 850 | Singapore | Sets out a three-stage framework for statutory interpretation. |
| Skyventure VWT Singapore Pte Ltd v Chief Assessor and another and another matter | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] SGCA 40 | Singapore | The correct interpretation must depend on the particular statutory context in which it is used, in particular, the legislative intention underlying the relevant statutory provision. |
| Tay Wee Kiat and another v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2018] 5 SLR 438 | Singapore | In considering an application for compensation under s 359(1) of the CPC, held that the court must “be able to say, with a high degree of confidence, that the damage in question ha[d] been caused by the offence under circumstances which would ordinarily entitle the victim to civil damages”. |
| Ramalingam Ravinthran v Attorney-General | N/A | Yes | [2012] 2 SLR 49 | Singapore | The Prosecution, playing its constitutional role, is presumed to be acting in the public interest when it commences or continues any prosecution. |
| Haw Tua Tau and others v Public Prosecutor | N/A | Yes | [1981-–1982] SLR(R) 133 | Singapore | The trial court must decide to call on the accused to give his defence if “there is some evidence which is not inherently incredible and which satisfies each and every element of the charge” under s 230(1)(j) of the CPC. |
| Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario | N/A | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 440 | Singapore | Where the trial judge has come to the conclusion that there is a “case to answer”, the trial judge may subsequently, quite consistently, if no evidence is called for the defendant, refuse to convict on the evidence for the prosecution. |
| The Law Society of Singapore v Gurbachan Singh | N/A | Yes | [2018] SGDT 13 | Singapore | The absence of the submission of “no case to answer” by the respondent is recognition that the Law Society’s case was not inherently incredible. |
| Lee Tat Development Pte Ltd v Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No 301 | N/A | Yes | [2018] 2 SLR 866 | Singapore | The very concept of malice itself tends towards a subjective inquiry which may create the problem of uncertainty. |
| Public Prosecutor v Azman bin Abdullah | N/A | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 351 | Singapore | Where the accused person who has been convicted by the trial court is acquitted on appeal, the appellate court must not merely entertain doubts as to whether the trial judge’s decision is right but must be convinced that the trial judge’s decision is wrong. |
| ADF v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | N/A | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 874 | Singapore | In relation to findings of fact based on the trial judge’s assessment of the credibility and veracity of witnesses, an appellate court will only interfere if the finding of fact can be shown to be plainly wrong or against the weight of evidence. |
| Re Parti Liyani | N/A | Yes | [2020] 5 SLR 1080 | Singapore | Sundaresh Menon CJ granted leave for an investigation to be made into Parti’s complaint of misconduct against the DPPs who had conduct of the trial. |
| Tang Yoke Kheng (trading as Niklex Supply Co) v Lek Benedict and others | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] 3 SLR(R) 263 | Singapore | There are, indisputably, only two standards of proof. For criminal cases, the standard is proof beyond reasonable doubt; for civil matters, the standard is that of a balance of probabilities. |
| Public Prosecutor v Donohue Enilia | N/A | Yes | [2005] 1 SLR(R) 220 | Singapore | In calculating compensation, the court may consider the principles of causation, mitigation and remoteness from the law of contract and tort. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| Rules of Court (Cap 322, R 5, 2014 Rev Ed) O 18 r 19(1)(b) |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 381 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 380 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 359(3) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 355(2) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 356 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 409 | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 9A | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 8 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 1900 (SS Ord No 21 of 1900) s 179 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 1910 (SS Ord No 10 of 1910) s 432D | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 1955 (No 13 of 1955) s 446 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 402 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 262(1) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Act 15 of 2010) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 6 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 5 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 3 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 230(1)(f) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 230(1)(j) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act (Cap 161, 2009 Rev Ed) ss 85(8)(a), 85(19), 93(2A) | Singapore |
| Legal Profession Act s 82A(3)(a) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Frivolous prosecution
- Vexatious prosecution
- Compensation order
- Prosecutorial discretion
- Statutory interpretation
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Acquittal
- Malicious prosecution
15.2 Keywords
- Criminal Procedure Code
- Frivolous Prosecution
- Vexatious Prosecution
- Compensation
- Acquittal
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Procedure | 90 |
| Compensation and costs | 80 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 70 |
| Construction of statute | 70 |
| Sentencing | 60 |
| Purposive approach | 60 |
| Criminal Law | 60 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Statutory Interpretation