The recent, high-profile decision of the Singapore High Court to acquit Miss Parti Liyani of theft charges brought against her has justifiably attracted significant attention in light of several observations made by the Court in its written grounds of decision.

These observations included lapses in the procedures adopted by the police in their course of their investigations into the alleged theft and the failure to preserve the chain of evidence.

A further issue highlighted by the Judge were certain potential irregularities concerning whether the prosecution had properly and fully disclosed certain matters relating to key evidence relied upon to damage the defence’s case theory.

In light of the Court’s observations, Miss Liyani resolved to seek leave from the Singapore High Court to lodge a formal complaint against the prosecutors pursuant to Section 82A(4) and (5) of the Legal Profession Act (Cap. 161) (the “Act“) read with Rule 4 of the Legal Profession (Disciplinary Tribunal) Rules (Cap.161).

On 23 October 2020, Miss Liyani’s application was heard and granted by Singapore’s Chief Justice.

The focus of this piece, however, is on the