PP v Wong Wee Keong: Endangered Species Act & Illegal Rosewood Import
The Public Prosecutor appealed against the acquittal of Wong Wee Keong and Kong Hoo Pte Ltd by the District Court on charges of importing Madagascan rosewood without a permit under the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act. The High Court, with See Kee Oon JC presiding, allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittal, and remitted the case back to the District Court, finding that the lower court had erred in its assessment of whether the rosewood was 'in transit' and therefore not imported. The primary legal issue was the interpretation of 'import' and 'transit' under the ESA in light of Singapore's obligations under CITES.
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
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Wong Wee Keong and Kong Hoo Pte Ltd were acquitted of importing Madagascan rosewood without a permit. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding errors in the lower court's decision.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Appellant | Government Agency | Appeal Allowed | Won | Kwek Mean Luck, Tan Wen Hsien, Sarah Shi, Zhuo Wenzhao |
| Wong Wee Keong | Respondent | Individual | Acquittal Set Aside | Lost | K Muralidharan Pillai, Paul Tan, Jonathan Lai, Choo Zheng Xi |
| Kong Hoo Pte Ltd | Respondent | Corporation | Acquittal Set Aside | Lost | K Muralidharan Pillai, Paul Tan, Jonathan Lai, Choo Zheng Xi |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| See Kee Oon | Judicial Commissioner | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Kwek Mean Luck | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Wen Hsien | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sarah Shi | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Zhuo Wenzhao | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| K Muralidharan Pillai | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Paul Tan | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Jonathan Lai | Rajah & Tann LLP |
| Choo Zheng Xi | Peter Low LLC |
| Kelvin Koh Li Qun | TSMP Law Corporation |
4. Facts
- Kong Hoo Pte Ltd was the consignee of a shipment of Madagascan rosewood logs.
- Wong Wee Keong was a director of Kong Hoo Pte Ltd.
- The rosewood logs entered Singapore waters on board the MV Oriental Pride on 28 February 2014.
- The cargo manifest stated that the cargo consisted of 'Bois'.
- The bills of lading stated that the port of discharge was Singapore and the consignee was Kong Hoo Private Limited.
- The vessel berthed at the Free Trade Zone of Jurong Port on 11 March 2014.
- Officers from the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore seized the rosewood logs on 14 March 2014.
- Madagascar had imposed a zero export quota on Madagascan rosewood since August 2013.
- Jaguar Express was engaged by Wong to unload the shipment of wood from the vessel, repack them into containers and truck them to another port.
- Wong informed Jaguar Express that the wood was to be shipped to Hong Kong.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Wong Wee Keong and another appeal, , [2016] SGHC 84
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Flora signed | |
| Convention on International Trade in Endangered Species of Wild Flora and Flora entered into force | |
| Singapore passed the ESA | |
| Madagascan rosewood listed in Appendix II to CITES | |
| Madagascar imposed a zero export quota on Madagascan rosewood | |
| CITES Secretariat issued notification of zero export quota | |
| Vessel left Toamasina, Madagascar with rosewood cargo | |
| Notification sent to member states extending zero export quota | |
| Vessel arrived in Singapore waters | |
| Vessel berthed at Jurong FTZ | |
| Logs offloaded from vessel | |
| AVA officers boarded the vessel and seized the rosewood logs | |
| Wong provided AVA with email address of Madagascan Forestry Ministry | |
| Wong gave documents to the AVA | |
| Ms Lye wrote to the Madagascan Forestry Ministry | |
| Wong wrote to Ms Sabine Dorothee | |
| Ms Lye received unsigned email regarding export authorization | |
| Ms Lye wrote to Ms Pia Jonsson of the CITES Secretariat | |
| Original charge drawn up under s 5(1) of the ESA | |
| Ms Jonsson replied to Ms Lye | |
| Delegation from Madagascar visited Singapore | |
| Mr Ramaparany Ramanana wrote to Ms Lye confirming authenticity of documents | |
| Information relayed to previous solicitors for the respondents | |
| Charge amended to one under s 4(1) of the ESA | |
| Joint trial of Wong and Kong Hoo | |
| Respondents acquitted by District Judge | |
| Public Prosecutor filed Magistrate’s Appeals Nos 9136 and 9137 of 2015 | |
| First hearing day of appeal | |
| Second hearing day of appeal | |
| High Court allowed the appeal |
7. Legal Issues
- Import of Scheduled Species without Permit
- Outcome: The High Court found that there was sufficient evidence to suggest that the rosewood was imported without a permit, overturning the District Court's decision.
- Category: Substantive
- Interpretation of 'Transit' under the Endangered Species Act
- Outcome: The High Court clarified the conditions under which a scheduled species is considered to be 'in transit' and not imported, emphasizing the 'sole purpose' and 'control' conditions.
- Category: Substantive
- Meaning of 'Control' in the Context of Goods in Transit
- Outcome: The High Court held that 'control' under the ESA requires an active form of control, not merely the passive control associated with 'customs control' under the Customs Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1996] 3 SLR(R) 90
8. Remedies Sought
- Criminal prosecution and penalties
9. Cause of Actions
- Importing a scheduled species without the requisite permit
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Litigation
- Regulatory Compliance
- International Trade Regulation
11. Industries
- Shipping
- Logistics
- Import/Export
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario | High Court | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 440 | Singapore | Cited for the test to determine whether the court must call on the accused to give his defence. |
| Haw Tua Tau v PP | Privy Council | Yes | [1981–1982] SLR(R) 133 | United Kingdom | Cited for the test to determine whether the court must call on the accused to give his defence. |
| Public Prosecutor v IC Automation (S) Pte Ltd | High Court | Yes | [1996] 2 SLR(R) 799 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the totality of the evidence has to be considered when determining whether evidence is so inherently incredible that it can be accepted or if the inferences sought to be drawn are reasonable enough to pass muster. |
| Public Prosecutor v Wong Wee Keong and another | District Court | Yes | [2015] SGDC 300 | Singapore | The judgment under appeal; the High Court disagreed with the District Court's decision. |
| Ladd v Marshall | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1954] 1 WLR 1489 | England and Wales | Cited for the requirements for the admission of new evidence on appeal. |
| Attorney-General v Transmax Pte Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1996] 3 SLR(R) 90 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the burden of proving that goods were bona fide in transit lies on the respondent. |
| Mersey Docks and Harbour Board v Henderson Bros | House of Lords | Yes | (1888) 13 App Cas 595 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that when a compound phrase is used in a statute, it must be construed as a whole and it would be incorrect to assume that the meaning of the phrase is merely the sum of the meanings of the individual words which constitute the phrase. |
| Public Prosecutor v Low Kok Heng | High Court | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 183 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an interpretation favouring the underlying legislative purpose of the enactment be favoured over one which does not. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (Cap 92A, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (Cap 92A, 2008 Rev Ed) s 4(1) | Singapore |
| Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (Cap 92A, 2008 Rev Ed) s 5(1) | Singapore |
| Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (Cap 92A, 2008 Rev Ed) s 2(1) | Singapore |
| Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (Cap 92A, 2008 Rev Ed) s 2(2) | Singapore |
| Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (Cap 92A, 2008 Rev Ed) s 2(2)(c) | Singapore |
| Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (Cap 92A, 2008 Rev Ed) s 20 | Singapore |
| Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (Cap 92A, 2008 Rev Ed) s 20(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (Cap 92A, 2008 Rev Ed) s 6(1) | Singapore |
| Customs Act (Cap 70, 2004 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Customs Act (Cap 70, 2004 Rev Ed) s 3(2) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 230(1)(j) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 230(1)(k) | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 107 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 108 | Singapore |
| Interpretation Act (Cap 1, 2002 Rev Ed) s 9A | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Madagascan rosewood
- Endangered species
- Import
- Transit
- CITES
- Zero export quota
- Customs control
- Authorised officer
- Consignee
- Bills of lading
15.2 Keywords
- Endangered Species Act
- CITES
- Madagascan rosewood
- Import
- Transit
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
- Wildlife
- Conservation
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Environmental Law
- International Trade
- Wildlife Conservation
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Statutory Interpretation
- Endangered Species Act
- International Trade Law