Liu Huijian v Public Prosecutor

On 16 November 2018, police seized 157 toy guns and toy gun parts from Liu Huijian's HDB flat across two raids. In a statement recorded that day, he admitted buying them on Taobao and paying in Renminbi. A charge under the Arms and Explosives Act was later amended at trial to one of importing at least one toy gun without a permit under the Regulation of Imports and Exports Regulations. He stayed silent when called on his defence, but argued that the search was unlawful, no seizure list was given, the exhibits were contaminated, his statement was threatened and fabricated, and importation and the lack of a permit were unproven.

A District Judge convicted him in Public Prosecutor v Liu Huijian [2025] SGDC 53 and imposed nine days' imprisonment, including an uplift of two days for his conduct at trial. Because he brought no bailor to the sentencing hearing, he served the sentence immediately. He then appealed in Magistrate's Appeal No 9233 of 2024 against conviction, sentence and the bail condition, filing submissions of almost 1,000 pages.

1. Whether proceeding before the Public Prosecutor's consent was obtained invalidated the conviction.
2. Whether the seized toy guns and his statement were properly admitted, and whether importation without a permit was proved.
3. Whether the sentence and the requirement for a bailor to attend were wrong.

The late consent was a procedural irregularity, but under s 423 of the CPC it mattered only if it caused a failure of justice, applying Rajendran s/o Nagarethinam v Public Prosecutor [2022] 3 SLR 689. The appellant himself raised it, identified no prejudice, and the amended charge had been read and explained to him.

The search was authorised by s 34 of the CPC. Failing to give a seizure list under s 37 did not require exclusion; following Muhammad bin Kadar v Public Prosecutor [2011] 3 SLR 1205, exclusion turns on prejudice outweighing probative value, and photographs, his presence at seizure and a sound chain of custody left the exhibits reliable. His complaints about the statement were bare and unsupported. Judicial notice could be taken that Taobao is China-based and Renminbi is legal tender only in China, so importation was the irresistible inference, and with no permit produced the court could find he had none.

General deterrence justified imprisonment given the scale of offending. Under s 382 of the CPC, bail pending appeal is discretionary and is a fresh grant, so a bailor had to attend.

The High Court dismissed the appeal in its entirety, upholding the conviction, the sentence of nine days' imprisonment and the District Judge's handling of bail.