The Pioneer DVD Player and the Prosecution’s Alleged “Sleight-of-Hand”
In the Defence's closing submissions, Defence argued that the Prosecution's demonstration of the Pioneer DVD player was a "sleight-of-hand". This was also addressed in Justice Chan Seng Onn's High Court judgment.
The Pioneer DVD player is an item from the first charge sheet, which includes other items Liew Mun Leong had accused Parti Liyani of stealing (namely, the Longchamp bags).
As stated in Defence's submissions, Parti's defence was that Mrs Liew wanted to throw the Pioneer DVD player away as it was not working. Parti asked to keep it and Mrs Liew acceded to this request. During the trial, Mr Liew had confirmed that the DVD player was broken.
At the State Courts
On Day 13 of the State Court trial, during Parti’s cross-examination by Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) Tan Yanying, the Prosecution decided to provide the Court with a ‘live’ demonstration, in their attempt to show that the DVD was working. The DPPs plugged the DVD player to a monitor using their own HDMI cables. As detailed in Defence’s submissions, after connecting the DVD player to the monitor and “fiddling with the controls on the player”, images were projected on to the monitor. Subsequently, this exchange took place between the DPP and Parti, who was on the witness stand:
DPP Tan: So, you agree---I mean, so you see that the DVD player is working, isn’t it?
Parti: Only now I realised, before that, I wouldn’t know.
DPP Tan: So I put it to you that you were lying that Mrs. Liew gave you this DVD player and told you that it was spoilt.
Parti: Disagree.
DPP Tan: I put it to you that you stole P19.
Parti: I did not steal this---I have---I am a poor person but my mother never teach me to steal. Even my deceased father never teach me to steal. If I steal, I would have already brought it home, why is it still around?
Later on, when Defence Counsel was able to conduct a second demonstration, it was revealed that the Pioneer DVD player was actually a combination DVD player as well as a Hard Disk recorder. When put into DVD mode, it became clear that the DVD player was not working, as the monitor first displayed “could not initialise disc”, and then “INIT error”.
When switched to Hard Disk mode, the player projected moving images from a “Discovery Channel” show. Defence Counsel then repeated the demonstration, including pressing the eject button of the DVD player to show that there was a DVD disc inside. When the disc was again inserted, the monitor again displayed the message “could not initialise disc”. Defence counsel then inserted a different DVD disc inside, and the monitor first said “no disc”, followed by “could not initialise disc”.
In Defence’s submissions, the argument was put forth that the DPP’s actions were misleading. In particular, it was noted that the player “could not have gone into Hard Disk mode without being deliberately engaged”. In other words, the images projected on the monitor during the DPP’s demonstration could only have been played if the player had been intentionally switched to Hard Disk mode.
Additionally, DPP Tan had “strenuously opposed” Defence Counsel conducting a demonstration during re-examination, and tried to argue that Defence was “leading evidence from the bar”, even though the DPP had done the same thing during cross-examination.
At the High Court Appeal
On Day 1 of the High Court appeal, 1 November 2019, the Pioneer DVD player was brought to Court. Justice Chan Seng Onn allowed for a demonstration to determine if the player was working or not. During the demonstration, Deputy Public Prosecutor, Marcus Foo, acknowledged that there was a hard drive inside, from which images could be played; he also acknowledged that one had to switch the player to HDD mode.
Defence Counsel then brought up to Justice Chan, during the High Court proceedings, that this was what had also happened at the State Court, stating: “The DPP switched the play mode from the DVD disc to the hard disk and impressed upon the Court that the DVD player was working. They did not explain that the hard disk was actually playing. It was our contention that the DVD player is not working.”
When further questioned by Justice Chan, DPP Foo admitted that “during the trial, it does appear that there were difficulties playing the DVD”. Justice Chan then repeated his question, “You are saying playing the DVD disc itself, there was a problem even at the trial itself?” To which DPP Foo replied, “At the trial, yes.”
The High Court Judgement
In his High Court judgment, Justice Chan noted Defence Counsel’s accusation of the Prosecution’s “sleight-of-hand”. In paragraph 90, Justice Chan detailed the demonstration at the High Court to establish the working condition of the DVD player. Justice Chan stated that, on appeal, “the Prosecution conceded and agreed with the Defence that during the trial below, there were already difficulties with the functionality of the Pioneer DVD player in playing the DVD disc but not in playing the recorded clip in the hard drive of the DVD player.” The full paragraph 90 is reproduced below (additional emphasis in yellow highlights):
Justice Chan further added: “As its name suggests, a DVD player’s main function is to play a DVD. Notwithstanding its ability to play from its hard disk, a DVD player that is unable to play a DVD can reasonably be described as ‘spoilt’.”