LIU HUIJIAN v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

Q: Which legislation does [2026] SGHC 13 consider?

The judgment refers to Arms and Explosives Act (Cap 13), Arms and Explosives Act, Court of Appeal noted that whilst a general principle that the court had the discretion to exclude evidence only on the ground that it was obtained in ways unfair to an accused (such as where the evidence was procured improperly or illegally) was incompatible with the Evidence Act (Cap 97), and Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

[2026] SGHC 13 High Court (General Division) 19 January 2026 HC/MA 9233/2024/01 29 min read

6 cases cited

Key facts

Court	High Court (General Division)
Decided	19 January 2026
Judge	Aidan Xu
Charges / claim	Criminal Law, Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
Counsel	Attorney-General's Chambers, Cheah Wenjie

Source: [2026] SGHC 13, High Court (General Division), decided 19 January 2026 — eLitigation. Updated 10 July 2026.

Catchwords

Criminal Law — Appeal Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Appeal Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Bail — Bail pending appeal

Practice Areas

Criminal Law Criminal Procedure and Sentencing

Judges (1)

Aidan Xu Delivered

Counsel (2)

Attorney-General's Chambers Firm Cheah Wenjie Counsel Respondent

Parties (2)

Public Prosecutor Respondent Liu Huijian Appellant

Case Significance

[2026] SGHC 13 is a High Court (General Division) decision dated 19 January 2026 concerning Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure and Sentencing, specifically addressing appeal and bail. The judgment was delivered by Aidan Xu. The case was brought by Liu Huijian (appellant) against Public Prosecutor (respondent). Legal representation was provided by Attorney-General's Chambers. The judgment cites 6 cases and references 5 statutory provisions, including the Arms and Explosives Act, the Court of Appeal noted that whilst a general principle that the court had the discretion to exclude evidence only on the ground that it was obtained in ways unfair to an accused (such as where the evidence was procured improperly or illegally) was incompatible with the Evidence Act, and the Criminal Procedure Code.

[2026] SGHC 13 explained

LIU HUIJIAN v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2026] SGHC 13) is a Singapore judgment decided by the High Court (General Division) on 19 January 2026. It is categorised under Criminal Law 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 [2026] SGHC 13 about?

LIU HUIJIAN v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2026] SGHC 13) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Law — Appeal”, “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Appeal”, and “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Bail — Bail pending appeal”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2026] SGHC 13 consider?

The judgment refers to Arms and Explosives Act (Cap 13), Arms and Explosives Act, Court of Appeal noted that whilst a general principle that the court had the discretion to exclude evidence only on the ground that it was obtained in ways unfair to an accused (such as where the evidence was procured improperly or illegally) was incompatible with the Evidence Act (Cap 97), and Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68), among other provisions. The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

Summary

A self-represented appellant convicted of importing toy guns without a permit under the Regulation of Imports and Exports Regulations appealed against conviction and sentence of nine days' imprisonment, filing nearly 1,000 pages of submissions. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the trial below regarding the amended charge, the admission of evidence, or the assessment of witnesses.

What was decided in [2026] SGHC 13?

[2026] SGHC 13 (LIU HUIJIAN v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR) is a High Court (General Division) decision from 19 January 2026 addressing Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure and Sentencing, specifically appeal and bail. The judgment was delivered by Aidan Xu.

Who were the parties in LIU HUIJIAN v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2026] SGHC 13)?

The appellant in [2026] SGHC 13 was Liu Huijian, and the respondent was Public Prosecutor. Legal representation included Attorney-General's Chambers. The case was decided on 19 January 2026 in the High Court (General Division).

Which judge decided [2026] SGHC 13?

[2026] SGHC 13 was delivered by Aidan Xu in the High Court (General Division) on 19 January 2026. The case concerned Criminal Law and Criminal Procedure and Sentencing.

What cases and statutes does [2026] SGHC 13 cite?

[2026] SGHC 13 cites 6 prior decisions. It references Arms and Explosives Act, Court of Appeal noted that whilst a general principle that the court had the discretion to exclude evidence only on the ground that it was obtained in ways unfair to an accused (such as where the evidence was procured improperly or illegally) was incompatible with the Evidence Act, Criminal Procedure Code.