GABRIEL SEE WEI YANG v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Facts

Sze Pak Hei, Gabriel (formerly known as Gabriel See Wei Yang) ran Full of Fun House Pte Ltd, which helped pet owners import and export pets. He faced eight forgery charges under s 465 of the Penal Code over documents for five dogs: a health certificate and two Veterinary Certificates for exporting a dog named Kiki to Taiwan, laboratory reports for the import of Kibu, Bamboo, Panda and Coffee, and an application for laboratory services for Kibu. The Prosecution relied on two police statements, recorded on 11 August 2016 (P3) and 5 September 2016 (P9), in which he admitted forgeries, along with the use of his credentials to submit documents and evidence from vets, AVA staff and pet owners. His case was that someone else, possibly a freelancer named Jason Lim, could have committed the forgeries.

After a trial with 21 witnesses and three ancillary hearings, the District Judge admitted P3, finding no threat and no credible evidence that his claimed mental conditions affected it. She convicted him on all eight charges. Taking into account a related 2008 antecedent for giving false information to a public servant, she imposed five months' imprisonment per charge (one reduced to four months), with three running consecutively for 14 months in total. He appealed against conviction and sentence in Magistrate's Appeal No 9070 of 2023/01. It was common ground that the ancillary hearing on P3 had wrongly required the Defence to give evidence before the Prosecution.

Issues

1. Whether the irregular order of the ancillary hearing on P3 caused a failure of justice under s 423(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code
2. Whether P3 and P9 should have been excluded for threat, oppression, failure to prove voluntariness or under the Kadar discretion
3. Whether the documents in all eight charges were proved to be forged and forged by the appellant
4. Whether the sentence of 14 months' imprisonment was manifestly excessive

Holding

The High Court dismissed the appeal against conviction and sentence. It reminded courts to follow strictly the procedure in s 279(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code for ancillary hearings.

Reasoning

Although the ancillary hearing was irregular, there was no failure of justice. Unlike in Fun Seong Chen, the investigating officer had already testified in the main trial that the recording was smooth and the appellant forthcoming, so the appellant knew the Prosecution's case. The officer was not present while the appellant testified in the ancillary hearing, and the judge had not relied on the disputed field diary.

The officer's remark that he "need not grill" the appellant was not objectively a threat, and both limbs of the voluntariness test must be met. There was no oppression: the medical reports did not show any condition operating on the day, and the appellant read, amended and countersigned P3, including changes that reduced his culpability. Where an accused does not challenge a statement such as P9, the Prosecution need not prove voluntariness. P9 also contained a self-serving amendment from "I have forged them" to "I think I have forged them". Neither statement warranted exclusion under the Kadar discretion.

On falsity, each charge was supported by witnesses who denied their signatures or showed duplicated reference numbers, together with his confessions. Submission to the AVA was not required under s 463, and a genuine report could be obtained through a forged application. The judge was entitled to accept Jason Lim's evidence of a minimal role and to find the appellant the forger.

On sentence, the antecedent was related and justified specific deterrence. Harm extended to owners who paid $2,000 each and to other countries. The appellant showed no link between any mental condition and the offending, the offences were premeditated, and the sentence compared fairly with Tan Moh Tien, where the offender pleaded guilty and faced fewer charges.

From the judgment