Wang Huijin v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Conviction for Using Criminal Force on Public Servant

Wang Huijin appealed to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore against his conviction in the District Court for using criminal force on a public servant, Wyatt Tan Jing Hui of the National Environment Agency (NEA), under Section 353 of the Penal Code. The High Court, presided over by See Kee Oon J, dismissed both the appeal and a related criminal motion to adduce fresh evidence, finding no reason to differ from the District Judge's conclusion that the charge was established beyond reasonable doubt and that the sentence of four weeks' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

General Division of the High Court

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Dismissed

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Wang Huijin appeals against his conviction for using criminal force on a public servant. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit.

1.7 Decision Date

6 July 2022

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Wang Huijin	Appellant, Applicant	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Foo Yu Kang Wilson
Public Prosecutor	Respondent	Government Agency	Judgment for Respondent	Won	Niranjan Ranjakunalan

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
See Kee Oon	Judge of the High Court	Yes

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Foo Yu Kang Wilson	Fervent Chambers LLC
Niranjan Ranjakunalan	Attorney-General’s Chambers

4. Facts

Appellant was observed littering by NEA officers.
NEA officers identified themselves to the appellant.
Appellant claimed to be a tourist without identification.
Appellant led NEA officers on a chase.
Appellant pushed PW1 Wyatt, causing him to fall.
Appellant instructed his wife to call the Chinese Embassy.
Appellant claimed he thought the NEA officers were scammers.

5. Formal Citations

Wang Huijin v Public Prosecutor and another matter, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9857 of 2020, [2022] SGHC 159
Wang Huijin v Public Prosecutor and another matter, Criminal Motion No 106 of 2021, [2022] SGHC 159
Public Prosecutor v Wang Huijin, , [2021] SGDC 173

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2018-01-29	Appellant threw a cigarette butt on the floor.
2018-01-29	Appellant used criminal force on a public servant.
2018-01-29	Appellant's wife lodged First Information Report.
2020-09-07	Videos recorded of traffic lights at Paterson Road and Orchard Boulevard.
2020-10-21	Psychiatric report prepared for the appellant.
2020-01-01	Magistrate’s Appeal No 9857 of 2020
2021-01-01	Criminal Motion No 106 of 2021
2021-01-01	District Judge's decision in Public Prosecutor v Wang Huijin [2021] SGDC 173
2022-04-22	Hearing date
2022-06-20	Hearing date
2022-07-07	Judgment date

7. Legal Issues

Knowledge of Public Servant Status
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant knew or ought to have known that the NEA officers were public servants executing their duties.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2018] 3 SLR 1080
Use of Criminal Force
- Outcome: The court found that the appellant had pushed PW1 Wyatt.
- Category: Substantive
Admissibility of Fresh Evidence
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application to adduce fresh evidence.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2014] 3 SLR 299
  - [1954] 1 WLR 1489
  - [2022] SGCA 38
  - [2018] 1 SLR 544
Disclosure of Evidence
- Outcome: The court dismissed the application for the Prosecution to disclose certain documents.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
  - [2011] 3 SLR 1205
  - [2015] 4 SLR 1184
Manifestly Excessive Sentence
- Outcome: The court found that the sentence of four weeks' imprisonment was not manifestly excessive.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
  - [2020] 5 SLR 453
  - [2018] 3 SLR 1080
  - [2020] SGDC 221
  - [2015] SGDC 59
  - [2020] SGDC 149

8. Remedies Sought

Appeal against conviction
Appeal against sentence

9. Cause of Actions

Using criminal force on a public servant

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Appeals
Criminal Law

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Public Prosecutor v Wang Huijin	District Court	Yes	[2021] SGDC 173	Singapore	The District Judge's decision that the charge had been established beyond reasonable doubt was upheld.
Soh Meiyun v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 3 SLR 299	Singapore	Cited for the conditions of non-availability, relevance and reliability set out in Ladd v Marshall for ascertaining whether fresh evidence sought to be introduced at the appellate stage was “necessary”.
Ladd v Marshall	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1954] 1 WLR 1489	England and Wales	Cited for the conditions of non-availability, relevance and reliability for ascertaining whether fresh evidence sought to be introduced at the appellate stage was “necessary”.
Gaiyathiri d/o Murugayan v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2022] SGCA 38	Singapore	Cited in relation to the conditions of non-availability, relevance and reliability for ascertaining whether fresh evidence sought to be introduced at the appellate stage was “necessary”.
Public Prosecutor v Mohd Ariffan bin Mohd Hassan	High Court	Yes	[2018] 1 SLR 544	Singapore	Cited for the principle that in criminal proceedings, courts have placed more weight on the relevancy, more specifically, materiality, as well as the credibility, of the further evidence to be adduced.
Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2011] 3 SLR 1205	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the Prosecution has a common law duty to disclose unused material which tends to undermine its case or strengthen the Defence’s case.
Lee Siew Boon Winston v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2015] 4 SLR 1184	Singapore	Cited for the principle that if the court is satisfied that there exist reasonable grounds to believe that the Prosecution has in its possession material which should be disclosed, then the presumption is displaced and the Prosecution has to show or prove to the court that it has not, in fact, breached its Kadar obligations.
Public Prosecutor v Yeo Ek Boon Jeffrey and another matter	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2018] 3 SLR 1080	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the knowledge required of an accused person in the context of a s 332 of the Penal Code offence is objective and not subjective knowledge.
Aw Soy Tee v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2020] 5 SLR 453	Singapore	Cited for the sentencing framework to be applied in the present case.
Public Prosecutor v Loh Chee Wah	District Court	Yes	[2020] SGDC 221	Singapore	Cited for the typical sentencing range for s 353 of the Penal Code offences, where there is a direct physical act, for example, a push.
Public Prosecutor v An Heejung	District Court	Yes	[2015] SGDC 59	Singapore	Cited by the appellant in support of his argument that a fine should be imposed instead of a custodial sentence, but distinguished by the court.
Public Prosecutor v Shalaan s/o Sukumaran	District Court	Yes	[2020] SGDC 149	Singapore	Cited by the appellant in support of his argument that a fine should be imposed instead of a custodial sentence, but distinguished by the court.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 353 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Environmental Public Health Act (Cap 95, 2002 Rev Ed)	Singapore
Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 392 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 22 of the CPC	Singapore
s 332 of the Penal Code	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Criminal force
Public servant
Objective knowledge
Acute stress reaction
Manifestly excessive
Littering offence
Wild goose chase
Scammer
Enforcement action

15.2 Keywords

Criminal force
Public servant
Appeal
Conviction
Sentence
Singapore
NEA
Littering

16. Subjects

Criminal Law
Criminal Procedure
Sentencing

17. Areas of Law

Criminal Procedure
Sentencing
Criminal Law