Tan Mui Teck v Public Prosecutor: False Evidence, Conflicting Expert Testimony & Sentencing
Tan Mui Teck appealed to the High Court of Singapore against his conviction and sentence in the District Court for six counts of giving false evidence in a judicial proceeding, an offence under s 193 of the Penal Code. The Public Prosecutor cross-appealed against the sentence, arguing it was manifestly inadequate. The High Court, Yong Pung How CJ, dismissed Tan's appeal against conviction, allowed his appeal against sentence reducing it to six months per charge with the sentences for three charges to run consecutively, and dismissed the Public Prosecutor's appeal.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appellant’s appeal against conviction dismissed; Appellant’s appeal against sentence allowed; Public Prosecutor’s appeal against sentence dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Tan Mui Teck appealed against conviction and sentence for giving false evidence. The High Court dismissed the conviction appeal but reduced the sentence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal against sentence dismissed | Lost | Eddy Tham of Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Tan Mui Teck | Appellant | Individual | Appeal against conviction dismissed | Lost | |
| Ivan Tan | Other | Individual | |||
| Sharon Wan | Other | Individual | |||
| Edmond Kuan | Other | Individual |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Eddy Tham | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
| Chia Boon Teck | Chia Yeo Partnership |
| Roy Yeo | Chia Yeo Partnership |
4. Facts
- Tan was the managing director and shareholder in Ishida Technologies.
- The Company launched a civil suit against three former employees for breach of contract.
- The trio counter-claimed for the balance of their wages and CPF entitlements.
- Tan filed an affidavit claiming the trio were consultants and had received full payment.
- Tan presented consultancy agreements and payment vouchers purportedly signed by the trio.
- The trio claimed they had never seen the documents and the signatures were not theirs.
- Tan was charged under s 193 of the Penal Code for giving false evidence.
5. Formal Citations
- Tan Mui Teck v Public Prosecutor, MA 11/2003, [2003] SGHC 162
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Ishida Technologies launched a civil suit against Ivan Tan, Sharon Wan, and Edmond Kuan for breach of contract. | |
| Date of consultancy agreements Tan Mui Teck claimed were signed by Ivan Tan, Sharon Wan and Edmond Kuan. | |
| Decision Date |
7. Legal Issues
- False Evidence
- Outcome: The appellant was convicted of giving false evidence.
- Category: Substantive
- Weight of Expert Evidence
- Outcome: The court preferred the prosecution's expert evidence based on the methodology and the number of specimen signatures available.
- Category: Procedural
- Credibility of Witnesses
- Outcome: The court found the trio to be consistent in their testimony and disbelieved the appellant's evidence due to inconsistencies.
- Category: Procedural
- Sentencing
- Outcome: The court reduced the sentence to six months per charge, with three charges running consecutively.
- Category: Procedural
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against Conviction
- Appeal against Sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Giving False Evidence
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Sentencing
- Evidence Law
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leong Wing Kong v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1994] 2 SLR 54 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an expert need only be skilled, acquired either by special study or experience. |
| Muhammad Jeffry v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR 197 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court would be loathe to disturb a judge's finding of fact unless there are compelling grounds to do so. |
| Lee Kwang Peng v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 278 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that once the defence had raised an allegation of conspiracy, it was incumbent on the prosecution to discount the possibility of collusion beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Koh Pee Huat v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [1996] 3 SLR 235 | Singapore | Cited for the observation that the normal tariff for an offence under s 193 of the Penal Code is six months. |
| Choo Pheng Soon v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2001] 1 SLR 698 | Singapore | Cited as a case where the sentence was enhanced due to aggravating circumstances, but distinguished from the present case. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code | Singapore |
| s 193 Penal Code | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- False Evidence
- Expert Evidence
- Conflicting Expert Testimony
- Credibility of Witnesses
- Sentencing
- Penal Code
- Consultancy Agreement
- Payment Vouchers
15.2 Keywords
- False Evidence
- Expert Testimony
- Sentencing
- Criminal Law
- Singapore
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Evidence | 85 |
| Evidence Law | 75 |
| Criminal Procedure | 70 |
| Sentencing | 65 |
| Admissibility of evidence | 60 |
| Similar fact evidence | 50 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Evidence Law
- Sentencing