Public Prosecutor v Kong Hoo: Endangered Species Act Import Violation
The Public Prosecutor appealed against the acquittal of Kong Hoo (Private) Limited and Wong Wee Keong by the District Judge for allegedly importing Madagascan rosewood without the necessary permit, an offence under s 4(1) of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act. The High Court, after reviewing the evidence, allowed the appeal, set aside the acquittals, and convicted the respondents, finding that the prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondents had imported the rosewood.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal allowed; the respondents were convicted of the charges.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Kong Hoo and Wong Wee Keong were charged with importing Madagascan rosewood without a permit, violating the Endangered Species Act. The High Court reversed the acquittal.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Appellant | Government Agency | Appeal Allowed | Won | Sarah Shi of Attorney-General’s Chambers Tan Wen Hsien of Attorney-General’s Chambers Zhuo Wenzhao of Attorney-General’s Chambers Kwek Mean Luck of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Kong Hoo (Private) Limited | Respondent | Corporation | Convicted | Lost | |
| Wong Wee Keong | Respondent | Individual | Convicted | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| See Kee Oon | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Sarah Shi | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Tan Wen Hsien | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Zhuo Wenzhao | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Kwek Mean Luck | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Choo Zheng Xi | Peter Low LLC |
| Paul Tan | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| K. Muralidharan Pillai | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
| Jonathan Lai | Rajah & Tann Singapore LLP |
4. Facts
- Respondents caused 29,434 logs of Madagascan rosewood to be brought into Singapore.
- Madagascan rosewood is specified in Appendix II of the Schedule to the ESA.
- Respondents did not have a permit issued by the Director-General.
- Rosewood was listed in Appendix II to CITES in March 2013.
- AVA issued a circular to inform all traders about the inclusion of Madagascan rosewood in the appendices of CITES in May 2013.
- Singapore Customs received information from RILO AP about a suspected illegal shipment of Madagascan rosewood.
- Cargo manifests stated that the consignee was Jaguar Express Logistics Pte Ltd and the port of discharge was Singapore.
5. Formal Citations
- Public Prosecutor v Kong Hoo (Pte) Ltd and another appeal, Magistrate’s Appeals Nos 9192 and 9193 of 2016, [2017] SGHC 65
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 | |
| Madagascan rosewood listed in Appendix II to CITES | |
| AVA issued a circular to inform traders about the inclusion of Madagascan rosewood in CITES appendices | |
| Government of Madagascar placed a zero export quota on Madagascan rosewood | |
| CITES Secretariat informed member states of Madagascar's zero export quota | |
| Initial zero export quota period specified in the first notification was to have expired | |
| Documents related to the export of the Rosewood from Madagascar were dated | |
| Documents related to the export of the Rosewood from Madagascar were dated | |
| Singapore Customs received information about a suspected illegal shipment of Madagascan rosewood | |
| CITES notified member states of extended zero export quota until 14 April 2014 | |
| Singapore Customs informed the AVA about the suspected illegal shipment | |
| Vessel arrived in Singapore waters and anchored in West Jurong Anchorage | |
| Vessel berthed at the Free Trade Zone of Jurong Port and Jaguar Express began unloading the Rosewood | |
| AVA officers boarded the Vessel and seized the rosewood logs | |
| Tentative booking for 30 containers on a vessel which was bound for Hong Kong | |
| Respondents were charged for breaching s 5(1) of the ESA | |
| Charges were amended to ones under s 4(1) of the ESA | |
| Trial took place | |
| Trial took place | |
| Mr Ramaparany Ramanana of the Madagascan Forestry Ministry wrote to Ms Lye Fong Keng of the AVA, referencing the earlier visit in December, and stated that he “confirm[ed] the authenticity of the documents.” | |
| High Court allowed the appeal and ordered that the matter be remitted for the Defence to be called | |
| Parties attended before the District Judge for the continuation of the trial | |
| Submissions in the present appeals were heard | |
| Prosecution filed Criminal Motion No 5 of 2017 to seek to admit further evidence | |
| Motion was heard and dismissed | |
| Judgment reserved |
7. Legal Issues
- Import of Scheduled Species without Permit
- Outcome: The court held that the respondents had imported the rosewood without the necessary permit, violating s 4(1) of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Whether Rosewood was 'in transit'
- Outcome: The court held that the rosewood was not 'in transit' within the meaning of s 2(2) of the Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act.
- Category: Substantive
- Sole Purpose Condition
- Outcome: The court held that the sole purpose condition was not met, as the rosewood was not brought into Singapore solely for the purpose of taking it out of Singapore.
- Category: Substantive
- Control Condition
- Outcome: The court held that the control condition was not met, as the rosewood was not under the control of the Director-General or an authorized officer.
- Category: Substantive
- Adverse Inference from Silence
- Outcome: The court drew an adverse inference from the respondents' refusal to give evidence, which contributed to the finding of guilt.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1981–1982] SLR(R) 133
- [1994] SGCA 102
- [2006] 2 SLR(R) 70
8. Remedies Sought
- Conviction of the respondents
9. Cause of Actions
- Importing a scheduled species without the necessary permit
10. Practice Areas
- Import and Export Regulations
- Wildlife Law
11. Industries
- Shipping
- Logistics
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor v Wong Wee Keong | District Court | Yes | [2015] SGDC 300 | Singapore | Cited as the District Judge's decision where the respondents were acquitted at the close of the Prosecution’s case. |
| Public Prosecutor v Wong Wee Keong and another appeal | High Court | Yes | [2016] 3 SLR 965 | Singapore | Cited as the first appeal where the High Court reversed the District Judge's decision and remitted the matter for the defence to be called. |
| Public Prosecutor v Wong Wee Keong and another | District Court | Yes | [2016] SGDC 222 | Singapore | Cited as the District Judge's decision where the respondents were acquitted after electing to remain silent. |
| Re Nalpon Zero Geraldo Mario | High Court | Yes | [2012] 3 SLR 440 | Singapore | Cited for the explanation of the expressions “minimum evaluation” and “maximum evaluation”. |
| Haw Tua Tau v Public Prosecutor | Privy Council | Yes | [1981–1982] SLR(R) 133 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that what has to be decided at the close of the Prosecution’s case is a question of law. |
| Oh Laye Koh v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1994] SGCA 102 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court must consider the totality of the evidence given by the Prosecution’s witnesses and tested in cross-examination. |
| Ladd v Marshall | English Court of Appeal | Yes | [1954] 1 WLR 1489 | England and Wales | Cited as the locus classicus on the reception of fresh evidence on appeal. |
| Soh Meiyun v Public Prosecutor | High Court | Yes | [2014] 3 SLR 299 | Singapore | Cited for the principles of non-availability, relevance, and reliability in the context of fresh evidence on appeal. |
| Mohammad Zam bin Abdul Rashid v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 2 SLR(R) 410 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the power to permit further evidence on appeal must be balanced by the public interest in the finality of trial. |
| Murray v Director of Public Prosecutions | House of Lords | Yes | [1994] 1 WLR 1 | United Kingdom | Cited for the principle that an adverse inference would properly be drawn where the facts clearly call for an explanation which the accused ought to be a position to give. |
| Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 619 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an adverse inference would properly be drawn where the facts clearly call for an explanation which the accused ought to be a position to give. |
| Took Leng How v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 70 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in appropriate cases, the proper inference to be drawn is that of guilt itself. |
| Weissensteiner v R | High Court of Australia | Yes | (1993) 178 CLR 217 | Australia | Cited for the principle that an adverse inference cannot be drawn solely for the purpose of bolstering a weak case. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chee Cheong Hin Constance | High Court | Yes | [2006] 2 SLR(R) 24 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that Section 108 of the Evidence Act does not have the effect of imposing a burden on the accused to prove that no crime had been committed. |
| Yap Son On v Ding Pei Zhen | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2017] SLR 219 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that s 108 of the EA only comes into play after the plaintiff has established a prima facie case against the defendant. |
| Surender Singh s/o Jagdish Singh and another (administrators of the estate of Narindar Kaur d/o Sarwan Singh, deceased) v Li Man Kay and others | High Court | Yes | [2010] 1 SLR 428 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that s 108 of the EA only comes into play after the plaintiff has established a prima facie case against the defendant. |
| Britestone Pte Ltd v Smith & Associates Far East, Ltd | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2007] 4 SLR(R) 855 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the burden should properly be characterised as an “evidential”, and not a “legal” burden. |
| Likpin International Ltd v Swiber Holdings Ltd and another | High Court | Yes | [2015] 5 SLR 962 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the question whether they were binding contracts does not turn on the name used in the title of the document, but on the intention of the contracting parties. |
| Teo Wai Cheong v Crédit Industriel et Commercial and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2013] 3 SLR 573 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that cross-examination is the cornerstone of the adversarial process for getting to the truth. |
| Public Prosecutor v Chua Siew Wei Kathleen | High Court | Yes | [2016] 2 SLR 713 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that if a prosecution is poorly conducted, this will manifest itself in, among other things, weak evidence and poorly-particularised charges. |
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) s 4(1) | Singapore |
| Endangered Species (Import and Export) Act (Cap 92A, 2008 Rev Ed) s 2 | Singapore |
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 511 | Singapore |
| Evidence Act (Cap 97, 1997 Rev Ed) s 108 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 291(3) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 291(6) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 258 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 261 | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code s 390(1)(a) | Singapore |
| Customs Act (Cap 70, 2004 Rev Ed) s 39(1)(b) | Singapore |
| Free Trade Zones Act (Cap 114, 2014 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Madagascan rosewood
- Endangered Species Act
- CITES
- Import
- Transit
- Sole purpose condition
- Control condition
- Consignee
- Jurong Port
- Free Trade Zone
15.2 Keywords
- Endangered species
- Import
- Export
- Rosewood
- CITES
- Singapore
- Criminal law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Endangered Species Act | 90 |
| Criminal Law | 70 |
| Criminal Procedure | 70 |
| Sentencing | 60 |
| Animal Law | 50 |
| Statutory Interpretation | 40 |
| Evidence | 40 |
| Burden of proof | 30 |
| International Trade | 30 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Environmental Law
- International Trade Law