Sze Pak Hei v. Public Prosecutor: Forgery of Pet Export/Import Documents
Sze Pak Hei, Gabriel, appealed to the General Division of the High Court of Singapore against his conviction and sentence for eight counts of forgery under s 465 of the Penal Code. The District Judge had sentenced Sze Pak Hei to 14 months' imprisonment for forging documents related to the import and export of pets. Dedar Singh Gill J dismissed the appeal, finding no errors in the District Judge's decision to admit certain statements as evidence and concluding that the documents were indeed forged by Sze Pak Hei.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
General Division of the High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Dismissed
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Judgment
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Sze Pak Hei appeals his conviction for forging pet import/export documents. The High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the conviction and sentence.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Dismissed | Won | Matthew Choo Hou Chong of Attorney-General’s Chambers Kiera Yu Jiaqi of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Sze Pak Hei, Gabriel (formerly known as Gabriel See Wei Yang) | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Dedar Singh Gill | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Matthew Choo Hou Chong | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Kiera Yu Jiaqi | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| N K Anitha | Anitha & Asoka LLC |
4. Facts
- Appellant operated Full of Fun House Pte Ltd, assisting pet owners with import/export.
- Appellant was convicted on eight counts of forgery under s 465 of the Penal Code.
- The charges involved forging health certificates and laboratory reports for exporting/importing dogs.
- The forged documents related to five dogs: Kiki, Kibu, Bamboo, Coffee, and Panda.
- Appellant's statement to the police and testimonies of customers and staff members were used as evidence.
- Appellant objected to the admission of one statement (Exhibit P3) claiming it was made involuntarily.
- The District Judge found all eight documents were forged and that the Appellant was the forger.
5. Formal Citations
- Sze Pak Hei Gabriel (formerly known as Gabriel See Wei Yang) v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9070 of 2023/01, [2025] SGHC 8
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant's statement to police (Exhibit P3) | |
| Appellant's statement to police (Exhibit P9) | |
| Changi General Hospital Report | |
| Letter from Dr Chan Chung-mau from Hong Kong | |
| Judgment reserved | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Admissibility of Statements
- Outcome: The court held that the statements were admissible as evidence.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Voluntariness of statement
- Threat
- Oppression
- Kadar Discretion
- Accuracy of statement
- Forgery
- Outcome: The court upheld the conviction for forgery, finding that the documents were indeed forged.
- Category: Substantive
- Sentencing
- Outcome: The court found that the sentence imposed by the District Judge was not manifestly excessive.
- Category: Procedural
- Sub-Issues:
- Harm caused by offences
- Prior antecedents
- Mitigating factors
- Mental health conditions
- Premeditation
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Forgery
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Law
- Appeals
11. Industries
- Pet Relocation
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rajendran s/o Nagarethinam v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2022] 3 SLR 689 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the central issue in determining whether an irregularity has caused a failure of justice is whether the irregularity renders the judgment unsafe or unfair. |
| Yusof bin A Samad v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR(R) 115 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that in determining whether there is a failure of justice, the court will ask itself the subjective question of whether it is content to allow the verdict to stand or whether there is some lurking doubt that an injustice has been occasioned. |
| Fun Seong Chen v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | No | [1997] 2 SLR(R) 796 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that where the Defence is asked to present its case before the Prosecution in an ancillary hearing, the court should not admit such evidence. |
| Sulaiman bin Jumari v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2021] 1 SLR 557 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Prosecution has the burden of establishing the voluntariness of the accused’s statement beyond a reasonable doubt where it is challenged. |
| Rajendran s/o Kurusamy and others v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR(R) 814 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the underlying concern for the requirement that the proper procedure be adhered to during ancillary hearings is to prevent prejudice to the accused who alleges the involuntariness of the statement. |
| Tan Choon Huat v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1991] 1 SLR(R) 863 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that when considering whether there has been a failure of justice, the court is not bound to consider the evidence before it in vacuo – it can consider and accord weight to the general feel of the case before it. |
| Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1998] 3 SLR(R) 619 | Singapore | Cited for the two-stage test for a threat, inducement or promise. |
| Lim Thian Lai v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2006] 1 SLR(R) 319 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that both limbs of the voluntariness test must be satisfied before a statement may be excluded on the basis that it was made involuntarily due to a threat, inducement, or promise. |
| Tey Tsun Hang v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 2 SLR 1189 | Singapore | Cited for the test for oppression is whether the accused’s mind and will was sapped such that he spoke when he otherwise would have remained silent. |
| Mustapah bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2023] SGCA 30 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the threshold to be met for oppression is a high one. |
| Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2011] 3 SLR 1205 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the court has the discretion to exclude a voluntary statement from evidence if its prejudicial effect exceeds its probative value. |
| Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Aliff bin Mohamed Yusoff | High Court | Yes | [2022] SGHC 295 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the Prosecution need not establish that all doubt of influence or fear had been removed from the accused’s mind. |
| Panya Martmontree and others v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1995] 2 SLR(R) 806 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that it would be unduly onerous to expect the Prosecution to disprove every conceivable allegation that could be raised by an accused person even when the latter does not object to the admission of his statement. |
| Chew Seow Leng v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2005] SGCA 11 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there was no need for the Prosecution to prove that the statements had been made voluntarily as the appellant had not mounted such a challenge during his trial or on appeal. |
| Public Prosecutor v Parthiban Kanapathy | High Court | No | [2021] 5 SLR 372 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that ancillary hearings allow the accused to give evidence and challenge the accuracy of statements before the close of the Prosecution’s case without sacrificing his right to remain silent. |
| Leck Kim Koon v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | No | [2022] 2 SLR 595 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that there is no requirement for the court to hold an ancillary hearing where the sole challenge to the accused’s statement relates to its accuracy. |
| BPH v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2019] 2 SLR 764 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the presence of related antecedents is an aggravating factor that would justify an enhanced sentence on the ground of specific deterrence. |
| Lim Ghim Peow v Public Prosecutor | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 4 SLR 1287 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the element of general deterrence can be accorded full weight in some situations, such as where the mental disorder is not serious or not causally related to the commission of the offence. |
| Idya Nurhazlyn bte Ahmad Khir v Public Prosecutor and another appeal | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2014] 1 SLR 756 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the psychological impact of incarceration on a particular offender is generally not a relevant sentencing consideration. |
| Public Prosecutor v Lim Chee Yin Jordon | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2018] 4 SLR 1294 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the absence of premeditation is only a neutral factor and not a mitigating factor. |
| Public Prosecutor v Tan Moh Tien | District Court | No | DAC 800878/2013 | Singapore | Cited as a sentencing precedent for forgery offences. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 465 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 279(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 258(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
| s 423(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Forgery
- Health certificate
- Laboratory report
- Veterinary Certificate
- Pet import
- Pet export
- Involuntary statement
- Ancillary hearing
- Kadar Discretion
- Mens rea
15.2 Keywords
- Forgery
- Pet Import
- Pet Export
- Criminal Law
- Singapore
- Appeal
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Forgery | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 90 |
| Fraud and Deceit | 85 |
| Theft | 60 |
| Animal Import/Export Regulations | 50 |
| Breach of Contract | 30 |
| Contracts | 25 |
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Forgery
- Animal Law