The First Police Report by Liew Mun Leong
The First Information Report (FIR), or police report, was filed by Liew Mun Leong on 30 October 2020. Mr Liew was accompanied by his son, Karl Liew.
In Court, Liew Mun Leong testified that filed the police report on 30 Oct 2016 after he spent a “few minutes, half an hour, I don’t know”, looking through the boxes on 29 October 2016.
Police officer Lee, who recorded the FIR, testified in Court that Karl Liew was present while the report was made, and that there were times when Karl Liew was correcting Mr Liew’s information.
The police report alleged that Parti had stolen from the Liews. The list of items, including Mr Liew’s valuations, were as follows:
The police report also concluded with this statement: “I also discovered photographs of her and her boyfriends. I am lodging this report for record purposes as I'm afraid that her boyfriends might cause a nuisance or break into my apartment. The total value of belongings not found in the boxes are estimated to be S$5,000.”
Defence had noted in its defence submissions that Mr Liew had a “somewhat laissez-faire approach to the precision of the contents of P11” (the FIR). In Court, Defence Counsel asked Mr Liew about this statement on the FIR, that on top of the list of alleged itemized stolen goods, there were also “belongings not found in the boxes”, which “are estimated to be S$5,000”. Mr Liew, on the witness stand, averred that the word ‘not’ should have been omitted—that is, the sentence should read ‘the total value of belongings found in the boxes’. Defence Counsel then pointed out to Mr Liew that the value of the first two listed items alone amounted to S$9,000.
In Court, Mr Liew then tried to explain this discrepancy of several thousand dollars by stating that a police report “is not memo to the cabinet”, and “you tend to make mistakes”.
In Court, Liew Mun Leong testified that filed the police report on 30 Oct 2016 after he spent a “few minutes, half an hour, I don’t know”, looking through the boxes on 29 October 2016.
Police officer Lee, who recorded the FIR, testified in Court that Karl Liew was present while the report was made, and that there were times when Karl Liew was correcting Mr Liew’s information.
The police report alleged that Parti had stolen from the Liews. The list of items, including Mr Liew’s valuations, were as follows:
- 2 x DVD players worth an estimated S$2,000
- 100 x clothes worth an estimated S$7,000
- Hard disks worth an estimated S$500
- Bags worth an estimated S$3,000
- Bed sheets and blanket covers worth an estimated S$1,200
- Towels worth an estimated S$100
- Pillow cases worth an estimated S$100
- Utensils worth an estimated S$500
- Gadgets worth an estimated S$1,000
The police report also concluded with this statement: “I also discovered photographs of her and her boyfriends. I am lodging this report for record purposes as I'm afraid that her boyfriends might cause a nuisance or break into my apartment. The total value of belongings not found in the boxes are estimated to be S$5,000.”
Defence had noted in its defence submissions that Mr Liew had a “somewhat laissez-faire approach to the precision of the contents of P11” (the FIR). In Court, Defence Counsel asked Mr Liew about this statement on the FIR, that on top of the list of alleged itemized stolen goods, there were also “belongings not found in the boxes”, which “are estimated to be S$5,000”. Mr Liew, on the witness stand, averred that the word ‘not’ should have been omitted—that is, the sentence should read ‘the total value of belongings found in the boxes’. Defence Counsel then pointed out to Mr Liew that the value of the first two listed items alone amounted to S$9,000.
In Court, Mr Liew then tried to explain this discrepancy of several thousand dollars by stating that a police report “is not memo to the cabinet”, and “you tend to make mistakes”.
This is what was written in the Defendant's Closing Submissions submitted to the State Court, paragraphs 420 and 421:
"Mr Liew’s conduct in relation to the filing of the FIR begs attention. The FIR identifies over a hundred items that have been allegedly stolen and contained in the boxes. Considering this drastic number, it is peculiar that Mr Liew spent a surprisingly brief amount of time ascertaining the theft of so many items. Furthermore, the FIR identified several items that are not listed in any of the charges, nor in the police photos used during Parti’s statement taking (attached to exhibit P31): hard disks, towels, and pillowcases. It is concerning that Mr Liew identified stolen items that were likely non-existent in the three jumbo boxes to Mr Lee. Mr Liew’s conduct thus reflects a lack of personal vigilance in examining and reporting an issue that had allegedly bothered him for years. It calls into question the true extent of his involvement and concern towards the ostensible theft and the resolution of it."
"The lacuna of the false information in the FIR can be explained in the following way: Mr Liew provided a list of items that he believed were stolen when making the police report, without visually inspecting the boxes with proper diligence. During the recording of the FIR, Karl chimed in and provided other items that he believed were allegedly stolen; the ‘team-work’ between father and son was corroborated by Mr Lee. Mr Liew and/or Karl’s further mention that Parti’s “boyfriends would cause a nuisance and break into my apartment”, based on photographs the Liew claimed they discovered of Parti and her boyfriends, was used to heighten the fear the Liews purported to be facing so that the police would take immediate action. The photographs the Liews claimed had caused them to fear Parti’s boyfriends also went conveniently missing and not brought to Court as evidence."
"Mr Liew’s conduct in relation to the filing of the FIR begs attention. The FIR identifies over a hundred items that have been allegedly stolen and contained in the boxes. Considering this drastic number, it is peculiar that Mr Liew spent a surprisingly brief amount of time ascertaining the theft of so many items. Furthermore, the FIR identified several items that are not listed in any of the charges, nor in the police photos used during Parti’s statement taking (attached to exhibit P31): hard disks, towels, and pillowcases. It is concerning that Mr Liew identified stolen items that were likely non-existent in the three jumbo boxes to Mr Lee. Mr Liew’s conduct thus reflects a lack of personal vigilance in examining and reporting an issue that had allegedly bothered him for years. It calls into question the true extent of his involvement and concern towards the ostensible theft and the resolution of it."
"The lacuna of the false information in the FIR can be explained in the following way: Mr Liew provided a list of items that he believed were stolen when making the police report, without visually inspecting the boxes with proper diligence. During the recording of the FIR, Karl chimed in and provided other items that he believed were allegedly stolen; the ‘team-work’ between father and son was corroborated by Mr Lee. Mr Liew and/or Karl’s further mention that Parti’s “boyfriends would cause a nuisance and break into my apartment”, based on photographs the Liew claimed they discovered of Parti and her boyfriends, was used to heighten the fear the Liews purported to be facing so that the police would take immediate action. The photographs the Liews claimed had caused them to fear Parti’s boyfriends also went conveniently missing and not brought to Court as evidence."