Tan Wei v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Excessive Sentence for Trade Marks Act Offence
Tan Wei, a People's Republic of China national, appealed to the High Court of Singapore against a 14-month imprisonment sentence imposed by the District Court for 11 charges under s 49(c) of the Trade Marks Act for possessing counterfeit luxury goods for trade. The High Court, presided over by Chao Hick Tin JA, allowed the appeal, finding the original sentence manifestly excessive and reducing it to nine months. The court considered Tan Wei's level of involvement in the counterfeit operation, her role as a temporary manager rather than the owner, and the need for sentencing to align with the gravity of the offenses.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court of the Republic of Singapore1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Tan Wei appeals against a 14-month sentence for possessing counterfeit luxury goods. The High Court reduces the sentence to nine months, citing excessive severity.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Tan Si En of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Wei | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Allowed | Won |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Chao Hick Tin | Judge of Appeal | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tan Si En | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mervyn Tan | Anthony Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- Tan Wei pleaded guilty to 11 charges under s 49(c) of the Trade Marks Act.
- The charges related to possessing counterfeit luxury goods for the purpose of trade.
- The counterfeit goods were seized from a retail shop and Tan Wei’s residence.
- Tan Wei assisted her boyfriend in selling counterfeit goods before his incarceration.
- After her boyfriend's incarceration, Tan Wei continued to manage the business.
- Tan Wei knew the goods were counterfeit and that it was an offence to sell them.
- Tan Wei moved counterfeit goods to the staircase landing after receiving a tip-off about a police check.
5. Formal Citations
- Tan Wei v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9174 of 2015, [2016] SGHC 72
- Public Prosecutor v Tan Wei, , [2015] SGDC 287
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Chiu Yee Seng registered a sole proprietorship running three shops selling counterfeit goods. | |
| Chiu Yee Seng was arrested and imprisoned for drug offences. | |
| Tan Wei requested Chiu's brother to ask Chiu whether to close the three shops. | |
| The police apprehended Tan Wei. | |
| Magistrate’s Appeal No 9174 of 2015 | |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Wei [2015] SGDC 287 | |
| Judgment reserved. | |
| Judgment delivered. |
7. Legal Issues
- Manifestly Excessive Sentence
- Outcome: The court found the original sentence manifestly excessive and reduced it.
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Level of involvement in the offence
- Comparison with sentencing precedents
- Consideration of mitigating factors
- Sentencing Guidelines
- Outcome: The court refined the sentencing guidelines for offences under s 49(c) of the Trade Marks Act, emphasizing the need for a fact-sensitive approach.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Application of sentencing benchmarks
- Consideration of individual circumstances
- Consistency in sentencing
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of s 49(c) of the Trade Marks Act
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Intellectual Property Law
11. Industries
- Retail
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Goik Soon Guan v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2015] 2 SLR 655 | Singapore | Cited for sentencing guidelines for offences under s 49(c) of the Trade Marks Act, particularly in cases of moderate involvement. |
| Public Prosecutor v Li Na | State Courts | Yes | [2015] SGDC 260 | Singapore | Compared to the present case to argue that the sentence was manifestly excessive, given the offender in PP v Li Na received a lighter sentence despite having prior convictions. |
| Mohamed Shouffee bin Adam v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 998 | Singapore | Cited regarding the principle that where three or more charges are preferred against an offender, the sentences of at least two of the charges would be ordered to run consecutively. |
| Public Prosecutor v Goh Chor Guan | District Court | Yes | [2010] SGDC 336 | Singapore | Compared to the present case to argue that the sentence was manifestly excessive, given the offender in Goh Chor Guan received a similar sentence despite being the prime mover in the operation. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Trade Marks Act (Cap 332, 2005 Rev Ed) s 49(c) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 307(1) | Singapore |
| Copyright Act (Cap 63, 2006 Rev Ed) s 136(2)(b) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Counterfeit goods
- Trade Marks Act
- Sentencing guidelines
- Manifestly excessive
- Level of involvement
- Mitigating factors
- Aggregate sentence
15.2 Keywords
- counterfeit
- trademark
- sentencing
- appeal
- luxury goods
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Trademark Infringement | 95 |
| Sentencing | 90 |
| Trademarks | 85 |
| Criminal Law | 70 |
| Appellate Practice | 60 |
| Appellate Litigation | 60 |
| Criminal Revision | 40 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing
- Intellectual Property