GIL v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Q: Which legislation does [2025] SGCA 21 consider?

The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), Evidence Act (Cap 97), and Penal Code (Cap 224). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2025] SGCA 21 Court of Appeal 6 May 2025 CA/CM 42/2024 22 min read

3 cases cited

Key facts

Court	Court of Appeal
Decided	6 May 2025
Judges	Belinda Ang Saw Ean, Debbie Ong Siew Ling, Tay Yong Kwang
Charges / claim	Evidence, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
Counsel	Attorney-General's Chambers, Trident Law Corporation, Tan Jun Yin, Tanaya Kinjavdekar, Teo Siu Ming, Wuan Kin Lek Nicholas

Source: [2025] SGCA 21, Court of Appeal, decided 6 May 2025 — eLitigation. Updated 3 July 2026.

Catchwords

Evidence — Presumptions — Accurate communication of electronic record Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Criminal references — Whether there is conflict of judicial authority Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Criminal references — Whether determination of question affected outcome of the case

Practice Areas

Evidence Criminal Procedure and Sentencing

Judges (3)

Belinda Ang Saw Ean Coram Debbie Ong Siew Ling Delivered Tay Yong Kwang Coram

Counsel (6)

Attorney-General's Chambers Firm Trident Law Corporation Firm Tan Jun Yin Counsel Applicant Tanaya Kinjavdekar Counsel Applicant Teo Siu Ming Counsel Respondent Wuan Kin Lek Nicholas Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

Public Prosecutor Respondent GIL Applicant

Case Significance

[2025] SGCA 21 is a Court of Appeal decision dated 6 May 2025 concerning Criminal Procedure and Sentencing and Evidence, specifically addressing presumptions and criminal references. The judgment was delivered by Debbie Ong Siew Ling, with Belinda Ang Saw Ean and Tay Yong Kwang on the coram. The case was brought by GIL (applicant) against Public Prosecutor (respondent). Legal representation was provided by Trident Law Corporation and Attorney-General's Chambers. The judgment cites 3 cases and references 3 statutory provisions, including the Criminal Procedure Code, the Evidence Act, and the Penal Code.

[2025] SGCA 21 explained

GIL v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2025] SGCA 21) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Court of Appeal on 6 May 2025. It is categorised under Evidence and Criminal Procedure and Sentencing. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2025] SGCA 21 about?

GIL v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2025] SGCA 21) is a Court of Appeal decision from 2025. Its published catchwords are “Evidence — Presumptions — Accurate communication of electronic record”, “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Criminal references — Whether there is conflict of judicial authority”, and “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Criminal references — Whether determination of question affected outcome of the case”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2025] SGCA 21 consider?

The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), Evidence Act (Cap 97), and Penal Code (Cap 224). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2025] SGCA 21 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2024] SGHC 287. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

Summary

GIL, convicted of outrage of modesty under s 354(2) of the Penal Code, sought permission to refer a question of law to the Court of Appeal regarding the interpretation of the electronic evidence presumption under s 116A(1) of the Evidence Act. The question concerned whether data from a smartwatch could be presumed accurate to establish the applicant was asleep at the time of the alleged offence. The Court of Appeal dismissed the application, finding no conflict of judicial authority and that the determination of the question did not affect the outcome of the case.

What was decided in [2025] SGCA 21?

[2025] SGCA 21 (GIL v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) is a Court of Appeal decision from 6 May 2025 addressing Criminal Procedure and Sentencing and Evidence, specifically presumptions and criminal references. The judgment was delivered by Debbie Ong Siew Ling.

Who were the parties in GIL v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2025] SGCA 21)?

The applicant in [2025] SGCA 21 was GIL, and the respondent was Public Prosecutor. Legal representation included Trident Law Corporation and Attorney-General's Chambers. The case was decided on 6 May 2025 in the Court of Appeal.

Which judge decided [2025] SGCA 21?

[2025] SGCA 21 was delivered by Debbie Ong Siew Ling in the Court of Appeal on 6 May 2025. Belinda Ang Saw Ean and Tay Yong Kwang also sat on the coram. The case concerned Criminal Procedure and Sentencing and Evidence.