SINGAPORE: A woman who launched a private prosecution against another woman has failed in her suit, with the court acquitting the defendant of all charges and finding the prosecution both “frivolous and vexatious” and part of a personal vendetta.
Ms Huang Sining, a 43-year-old China national, brought five charges against Ms Juan Lingjiao, whom she claimed was a stranger to her. The pair worked at neighbouring shops in Far East Plaza.
The charges are for incidents that occurred over three days in October 2019.
Ms Huang claimed that Ms Juan had threatened Ms Huang at a unit in Far East Plaza, saying in Mandarin: “I warn you, do not speak to my staff, and do not pass by my shop, or each time I see you I will hit you.”
She also claimed that Ms Juan had used insulting words against her, near the same shop in Far East Plaza: “Your face, really, even S$1 million of plastic surgery cannot make nice.”
Ms Huang also charged that Ms Juan had spat into Ms Huang’s food at Far East Plaza, snatched another person’s handphone and thrown it to the ground and hit Ms Huang’s phone in Ms Huang’s hand.
COURT ACQUITTED DEFENDANT
The trial was heard in a Magistrate’s Court between October 2021 and August 2022 and the judge acquitted Ms Juan of all five charges.
This was after she found that Ms Huang’s edited recordings had hidden crucial facts from the court.
These include that it was Ms Huang who uttered insulting words about Ms Juan’s nose, face and brain first before Ms Juan retaliated.
Ms Juan’s retaliatory words did not cause Ms Huang harassment, distress or alarm at all, because Ms Huang was seen smiling at Ms Juan and continuing to taunt her.
The judge found Ms Huang’s act of submitting misleading evidence to be dishonest and an attempt to pervert the course of justice.
The court also found that Ms Huang’s personal grievances were exposed in her line of questioning.
She said that Ms Juan and other people had lodged a complaint to the Ministry of Manpower against Ms Huang and her husband, which caused “a lot of impact” to them.
Ms Huang faces a pending charge under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act for selling bicycles at a Far East Plaza shop in May 2021 without a valid work pass.
Ms Huang tried to appeal against the decision, but failed to obtain the sanction of the public prosecutor to do so.
She filed applications for criminal motions and a criminal revision against the acquittal to the High Court, but these were also dismissed.
Ms Juan’s lawyers argued that the prosecution was frivolous or vexatious, showing malice and a lack of good faith.
MS HUANG’S RESPONSE
In response, Ms Huang said her prosecution was not frivolous or vexatious, because the public prosecutor had given her permission to proceed.
She also argued that she had to commence and conduct her own prosecution against Ms Juan because the police had decided against prosecution.
She also claimed that the court’s acquittal of Ms Juan was mainly because she had to conduct criminal proceedings with police assistance, and that the police had refused to give her evidence assisting her case.
In a judgment published on Friday (Feb 24), District Judge Lee Li Choon said that Ms Huang bore “bitter enmity” against Ms Juan and had made unnecessary comments about Ms Juan’s character in personal attacks against her.
Ms Huang’s conduct before, during and after trial proceedings shows that she “bears deep-seated grievances against Ms Juan and reveals her ulterior motives or intention to harass Ms Juan when she commenced and continued her criminal prosecution against Ms Juan”, said Judge Lee.
She found that the commencement and continuation of prosecution proceedings against Ms Juan were motivated out of “ulterior motives or was for a collateral purpose”.
She found that Ms Juan’s defence had succeeded in proving “the serious and grave assertion that the prosecution is frivolous and/or vexatious”.
Judge Lee said that Ms Huang’s continued attempts to revisit the criminal charges against Ms Juan show that she is “hell-bent on going after” her and refuses to accept the outcome of her prosecution.
“This further reinforces my finding that she has brought these prosecution proceedings against Ms Juan out of malice and her personal vendetta against Ms Juan,” said the judge.
She ordered Ms Huang to pay the full costs, charges and expenses incurred by Ms Juan for her defence.