“Giving Them Hope That Something Good Can Happen”: An Interview with Parti Liyani’s Defence Lawyer Anil Balchandani
9 September 2020
Photograph of Anil Balchandani and Parti Liyani outside Singapore’s State Courts on 8 Sep 2020, after Parti was acquitted of the fifth charge. Photo credit: Grace Baey
Anil Balchandani was approached by staff from HOME to assist with Parti Liyani’s case end-2017. It was challenging for HOME to find a lawyer who would take on a case of this proportion, with so many items included in the charges, involving a prominent and wealthy family. Anil had previously provided counsel for a migrant worker—an SMRT bus driver—who was accused of a rash act. That case took 37 months, and Anil supported his client through a 26-day trial, which also resulted in an acquittal of the accused worker. Anil has also represented a youth accused of drug trafficking charges, securing probation for his client who faced up to 20 years in jail and 15 strokes of the cane. You can read more about Anil’s work here: http://www.lawyer.com.sg/.
HOME conducted a video interview with Anil on 23 August 2020, after Parti Liyani’s High Court appeal, and before the High Court judgment was delivered. You can watch the video below, and also read excerpts of the interview, which are edited for clarity.
Transcript
What were some of the high points and low points of the District Court trial, for you?
It was a very, very difficult trial, not just because we knew it was going to last 10 months. It was a very difficult and long-drawn trial because of the sheer number of items that we had to deal with. And I didn’t have any assistants, so I had to rely on a well-managed or well-accounted-for set of documents, understand Parti’s instructions clearly. We were up against a very tenacious set of prosecutors. We were also up against a very prominent family.
We didn’t have a robust defense, and what I mean by that is we didn’t have a defense that was based on photographs that Parti had taken. In fact, one of the downsides of our case is that Parti, just as a person, never really took a lot of photographs of herself, to identify, look, you know, I had these items, I bought these items, I shared these photographs with whoever it was. So we had that so-called limitation. And the High Court appeal was also long. It took three full days of appeal. I think the most memorable or lucky point that we had was that we asked the court to have all the items presented before it. Because you know usually, all this is done at the trial level but at the appellate level, it’s more oral (arguments). And the court agreed. And that allowed us to present to the court what you can’t see in pictures. So the condition of the items, the clothes, the rags, the very old DVD player, the earrings, the jewellery that was outdated. You could see it in a photograph, in a colour photograph, but you don’t really appreciate until you see it. And slowly, we were able to inch forward, because every item has its own story. Each item had to be explained. Of course, the prosecution had its own side to the story, and we had to basically convince a judge that, look, why would someone steal junk?
What has been the most surprising aspect, for you?
Let me say this, moving away from the legal side, I would say that I was surprised with Parti’s resolve. Because you know, someone in her shoes generally faces more than just the pressures from the legal system. There is a family that she has to take care of, probably living expenses in Singapore. Then, just the inability to talk to anybody. Friends – probably no friends or a lot of folks who may not understand what she’s going through. So the surprise was that she was able to hold fort up to now. Because if you look at Parti’s case, if she had pleaded guilty at the first mentions, or shortly after the offer was given in 2017, she would have been at home now, 2.5 years down the road. Or perhaps even quicker, because the offer was for just one or two charges. And she could have restarted her life, continued working in another country and just thought about what happened in Oct 2016 when she was dismissed, as just a bad dream. So what is different is, unfortunately, a lot of foreign domestic workers don’t know their rights. Don’t have, I guess, that courage, and are financially strapped. I mean, to fight a case, you need—not that you pay a lawyer—but you need at least some way to sustain yourself, without lowering your dignity.
And that’s where I think the power of that whole team came in. It was a group of very dedicated – in fact, mostly women – who also believed in Yani’s innocence. I knew also that I had the support of HOME. So we made it a point to meet every week, even if there was just one or two action items to be done. But that regularity, or routine, kept the tasks on target, and I think it also to some extent helped Parti continue along the path, she knew that we were on top of this. One of the problems with dealing with FDWs or FWs—foreign workers and foreign domestic workers—is that they have to present their case, their story in court, and a lot of them are not either confident or they come off as being very unprepared.
It’s a daunting process, being cross-examined. And it’s easy to say “I don’t know”, or it’s easy to say, “I forgot”, and when you say things like that, even though you have an inkling of what the answer is, you come off as being not credible as a witness. And that damages their credibility in court.
After the State Court verdict, what were some critical factors in influencing your decision to take on the appeal?
This took a little bit of time. The reason I say that is; I read the judgment and I felt that the judge had erred in a number of ways, not just in facts but in inference. And, there were some simple errors as well. But that was not the reason I decided to take on the appeal.
At the trial level what I saw, what I experienced, what I argued for, and what I understood from the prosecution just didn’t make sense. I’m talking about the prosecution side - it just didn’t make any sense. The prosecution made arguments that were convenient for their witnesses, but they didn’t think for a moment that hey, you know, the same could apply for our (defense’s) witnesses.
What I believed I had to do was provide Parti the opportunity at the appellate level, and I thought, given my experience - or relative inexperience - I would get someone more senior to do it, just to help out. And I approached a number of good senior lawyers to help, and they reviewed the case. But it was difficult for them to take on at that level - at the pro-bono level - because it was just too voluminous for me to pass on to a senior lawyer, even though I would of course stay on and help. For them, it was possibly unfair in terms of their time, and also to wrap everything together. You could say there are two stages, one is to understand what happened to each and every one of these items, and then to wrap it around and say look, how does it all fit into their case, into our case.
But like I said, I did receive good advice, and one senior lawyer stuck with me. His name is Suresh Damodara. He was very helpful. He met with me a few times. He was able to provide some framework, which is, look, you’re so heavily silo-ed in this case that you can’t see it from the top, and that’s what sometimes judges look for, you know – give me the big picture, tell me what’s not in the facts. And so, Suresh was able to help me with that, and that gave me a little more confidence. I have to thank him for that. As well as the other senior lawyer, Sant Singh, who also gave me some time, and his opinion on the case. Abraham Vergis was very helpful, as well as Eugene Thuraisingam. I have to thank all of them for that.
But in the end, I kind of realized – through Suresh’s advice, which was, “look, if you ask me to do it, I’m probably not going to do it as well as you do, because you know all the facts,” – that I would have to do it.
There were some tense, provocative moments during the trial. How did you manage to stay so calm?
Well, it’s tough to stay calm totally during a trial. Especially a criminal trial, because there are a lot of emotions that run between everyone, at least between the prosecution and the defense. I really don’t think I remained calm all the time. I mean, sometimes I do react if something goes wrong or something is said on the other side. And it’s a learning process, you know, when you’re in the heat of the moment, you’re sort of in battle, and especially if you don’t have another counsel to throw an idea across, or receive feedback, you have to make a decision quickly based on what would be in the best interest of your client.
But it’s a learning process, it’s something you realise as you look back. And you tell yourself, well, perhaps I overreacted and I could have let that one slide. And you hope you get better, especially with a long trial, you tend to lose a little bit of your patience quicker than with a shorter trial or an easier trial.
Going through this whole process with Parti and working closely with HOME—what insights have you gained regarding migrant workers’ vulnerabilities, in relation to access to justice and our criminal justice system?
I always had this impression that when you have about a million people here, who are foreign domestic workers and foreign workers, without proper representation—I’m talking about at the political level— you are going to run into problems down the line. Problems down the line end up being problems with our justice system, where foreign domestic workers or foreign workers just don’t know what they’re up against, they don’t know who to turn to. They feel that it’s convenient, or they are given the impression that it’s just convenient to apologise and plead guilty, and they’ll be sent home, which is what they really want after a little while of being accused and interrogated. And that in itself is an injustice. I mean, it sounds good when we are able to technically solve a case—when I use the word technically, I mean that you’ve found a guilty person—but it may not really be that it is the right person, or it may not be even a crime, it’s just a blank or bald accusation. And so, while we protect these vulnerable workers under our penal code if harm is done onto them, our criminal justice system doesn’t necessarily protect them when there’s an accusation against them.
Now, it’s easy to say the criminal justice system is busted and we need to fix it, but I think as we move forward, and as we get a little more advanced as a nation, we need to realise that the system as we envisioned it doesn’t cater for these unrepresented folks—and I’m talking about politically unrepresented—and the reason why I say that is, with proper representation, these issues are naturally heard, but without this representation you don’t know until something terrible happens.
Now that the appeal has ended, what are your hopes regarding the judgment, and for Parti?
Well, it’s still open, you know, the judgment hasn’t been announced [this interview was conducted before the judgment was announced]. I think at this stage, meaning at an unannounced appeal judgment, you have to be...I have to be very guarded. I have gone through appeals where you think the judge is on your side, and it just turns flat. And you have to guard against either being overconfident or too pessimistic also. You want to properly advise your client in terms of what can be done – whether there is a way of making a criminal reference, or accepting that this is now the end of a journey.
The good part about not doing capital cases is that Parti, or at least the accused in general, will come out and will be able to get back to whatever she or he was doing before this—it may take a little bit of time, but you have tried the best you can, and you have to accept the wisdom of the court and how it has decided; either, well, against you, or against the person who is in the dock. And so as we approach judgment day, which is on the 4th of September, I think I just have to remain somewhat neutral.
We’ve done quite a bit; we, as in the defense and folks from HOME, and we have also learned a lot from Parti, which is a big thing. When you are dealing with an accused person who’s kind of alone, who doesn’t have much to look forward to . . . it’s something I’ve also learned and appreciate, you know – look, here’s somebody who has the courage to stand up and will be able to handle a decision that may not be in her favour.
After all that you’ve been through taking on this case, will you continue to take on pro-bono cases for migrant workers?
If I could say, lawyers like myself who work on pro-bono matters do some work, but the real work is done by a lot of these NGOs. I don’t want you to believe that if you’re a lawyer you’re doing the bulk of the work. I think the bulk of the work is really done by a lot of people from HOME and the other NGOs that step forward—that’s the real jawbreaker, the back-breaking activity—meeting with them every week, every month, giving them that hope that something good can happen.
Kokila Annamalai