- Joined
- Apr 9, 2009
- Messages
- 3,070
- Points
- 0
A FILIPINO maid is challenging the decision of the Attorney-General to stop a private prosecution that she wanted to bring against a housewife.
The housewife, Madam Ong May Lee, in her 50s, had complained to the Manpower Ministry and the Singapore Medical Council in December 2008 that Ms Marites de la Cruz Martinez, 40, was dispensing medicine in the clinic owned by her employer, Dr Ashok Segar.
This would violate her work permit conditions. Also, a maid is not qualified to work as a clinic assistant.
After Madam Ong’s allegations about Ms Martinez were found to be false, the maid said she was defamed and sought a private prosecution for criminal defamation.
An individual who believes she has been wronged can seek redress in the courts by initiating what is called a private prosecution. This can be done by going to a magistrate who, after assessing the merits of the case, may issue a summons for private prosecution.
Public prosecutions are undertaken by state prosecutors or enforcement agencies such as the police.
At a hearing before District Judge Lee Poh Choo last week, the Attorney-General’s representative asked for the case to be dropped, leading to the challenge by the maid’s lawyer, Mr Glenn Knight.
He argued that while the Attorney-General has the discretion to institute, conduct or discontinue any proceedings for any offence, such powers do not preclude people from pursuing private prosecutions.
He argued that the maid was devastated by the investigations into the housewife’s complaints and has the right to seek redress.
At issue is whether the maid’s case can proceed even if the Attorney-General chooses not to pursue the matter. At the hearing, the Attorney-General did not give any reasons for wanting the case to be dropped.
District Judge Lee adjourned the hearing until Sept15 for the Attorney-General to respond to Mr Knight’s arguments.
This is not the first time the Attorney-General has stepped in to stop a private prosecution. In October last year, it intervened to end a series of private prosecutions involving Singapore Swimming Club members for criminal defamation.
It explained then that the matters “were not sufficiently serious to warrant prosecution for criminal defamation”. The parties involved did not challenge the Attorney-General’s move.
Mr Knight said in the case of the club, the members had pursued the cases in civil and criminal defamation proceedings. His client, however, could not afford to bring a civil defamation suit against Madam Ong and would have no other recourse if the court rejected her suit.
A civil suit usually takes longer and the legal fees are higher.
He noted that the Attorney-General had taken almost seven months from when the complaint was processed in February before it sought to drop the case. He suggested the law be changed to spell out the circumstances in which the Attorney-General could intervene in private prosecutions.
Madam Ong’s lawyer, Mr Chen Chee Yen, said he would also present his arguments to “reinforce” the prosecution’s move “to intervene and end the criminal defamation proceedings”.
