Tan Wen Hsien

Tan Wen Hsien is a legal practitioner in Singapore. With documented cases from 2003 to 2020. The lawyer has handled 31 cases in Singapore's courts. Associated with 4 law firms. The lawyer demonstrates particular expertise in criminal law and criminal procedure. Their track record shows a 52.0% success rate in resolved cases.

Areas of Practice and Expertise

Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated expertise across 61 primary practice areas, with significant experience in criminal law and criminal procedure.

Practice Area	Case Volume	Distribution	Expertise Level	Description
Criminal Law	29 cases	15% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 29 cases which represents 15% of their total caseload.
Criminal Procedure	28 cases	15% of total caseload	Highly Specialized76% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 28 cases which represents 15% of their total caseload.
Sentencing	22 cases	12% of total caseload	Highly Specialized78% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 22 cases which represents 12% of their total caseload.
Misuse of Drugs Act	9 cases	5% of total caseload	Highly Specialized94% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 9 cases which represents 5% of their total caseload.
Administrative Law	8 cases	4% of total caseload	General Practice19% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 8 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Evidence	7 cases	4% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 7 cases which represents 4% of their total caseload.
Statutory Interpretation	6 cases	3% of total caseload	General Practice48% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 6 cases which represents 3% of their total caseload.
Culpable Homicide	4 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized91% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 4 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Sentencing Framework	3 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized78% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Endangered Species Law	3 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
International Trade	3 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice37% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Penal Code	3 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced53% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Murder	3 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Offences	3 cases	2% of total caseload	Experienced63% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Personal Injury	3 cases	2% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 3 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Mentally disordered offenders	3 cases	2% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 3 cases which represents 2% of their total caseload.
Appeal	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Criminal Revision	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice25% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Torts	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Domestic Maid Abuse	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Importation of Drugs	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Constitutional Law	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice8% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Burden of proof	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice35% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Civil Procedure	2 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice6% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Psychiatry	2 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 2 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Public Prosecutor	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Compensation and costs	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Fetishistic Disorder	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Penal statutes	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Endangered Species Act	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized90% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Import and Export Regulations	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Parity Principle	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Prostitution Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Traffic Offences	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Coroners Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Inquiries	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice40% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Face Rage	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Animal Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced50% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Civil Litigation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Collections	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice1% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Contracts	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice1% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Environmental Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Family Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice10% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Pleadings	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice20% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Pharmaceutical Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Fraud and Deceit	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Evidence Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice30% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Complicity	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Road Traffic Act	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized85% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Diminished Responsibility	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized75% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Sudden fight	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced55% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Sexual Offences	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Young Offenders	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced60% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Falsification of Accounts	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Drug Trafficking	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Contract Law	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice1% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Professional Ethics	1 cases	1% of total caseload	General Practice5% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated general practice experiencein this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Sentencing Principles	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced70% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Newton hearings	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized95% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Voluntarily Causing Hurt	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Highly Specialized80% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated deep specialization and significant involvement in complex mattersin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.
Provocation	1 cases	1% of total caseload	Experienced65% relevance score	Tan Wen Hsien has demonstrated substantial experience and regular engagementin this area, handling 1 cases which represents 1% of their total caseload.

Law Firm Affiliations

Tan Wen Hsien has been affiliated with 4 law firms. The most active affiliation involves 28 cases.

Law Firm	Cases Handled	Workload Share	Recent Cases
Attorney-General’s Chambers	28 cases	90% of cases	Public Prosecutor v Raj Kumar: Trafficking Cannabis under Misuse of Drugs Act(Jun 2020) Tay Wee Kiat v Public Prosecutor: Determining Commencement Dates for Sentences and Varying Compensation Order(Sep 2019) Public Prosecutor v Khoo Kwee Hock Leslie: Murder, Diminished Responsibility, Provocation, and Sudden Fight(Sep 2019)
Public Prosecutor	1 cases	3% of cases	PP v Ho Wei Yi: Culpable Homicide, Mental Disorder, and Sentencing(May 2014)
Deputy Public Prosecutors	1 cases	3% of cases	Tan Puay Boon v Public Prosecutor: Falsification of Accounts under Penal Code s 477A(Aug 2003)
Deputy Public Prosecutor	1 cases	3% of cases	PP v Chaw Aiang Wah: Culpable Homicide and Deterrent Sentencing for 'Face Rage' Incident(Aug 2004)

Case Complexity Analysis

Analysis of Tan Wen Hsien's case complexity based on the number of parties involved and case characteristics.

Complexity Overview

Average Parties per Case: 2.4
Complex Cases: 0 (0%); Cases with more than 3 parties

Complexity by Case Type

Type	Cases	Avg Parties	Distribution
Lost	72.4 parties avg	2.4	23%
Neutral	12.0 parties avg	2.0	3%
Partial	72.3 parties avg	2.3	23%
Won	162.4 parties avg	2.4	52%

Complexity Trends Over Time

Year	Cases	Average Parties
2003	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2004	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2013	12.0 parties avg	2.0
2014	42.0 parties avg	2.0
2015	32.3 parties avg	2.3
2016	22.5 parties avg	2.5
2017	72.4 parties avg	2.4
2018	62.5 parties avg	2.5
2019	52.4 parties avg	2.4
2020	13.0 parties avg	3.0

Case Outcome Analytics

Analysis of Tan Wen Hsien's case outcomes, including distribution by type, yearly trends, and monetary outcomes where applicable.

Outcome Distribution

Outcome Type	Cases	Percentage
Lost	7(23%)	23%
Neutral	1(3%)	3%
Partial	7(23%)	23%
Won	16(52%)	52%

Monetary Outcomes

Currency	Total Amount	Average	Cases
SGD	1,000.00	333.333 cases	3

Yearly Outcome Trends

Year	Total Cases	Outcome Distribution
2003	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2004	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2013	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)
2014	4 112	Lost: 1 cases (25.0%) Partial: 1 cases (25.0%) Won: 2 cases (50.0%)
2015	3 12	Neutral: 1 cases (33.3%) Won: 2 cases (66.7%)
2016	2 11	Lost: 1 cases (50.0%) Won: 1 cases (50.0%)
2017	7 133	Lost: 1 cases (14.3%) Partial: 3 cases (42.9%) Won: 3 cases (42.9%)
2018	6 132	Lost: 1 cases (16.7%) Partial: 3 cases (50.0%) Won: 2 cases (33.3%)
2019	5 32	Lost: 3 cases (60.0%) Won: 2 cases (40.0%)
2020	1 1	Won: 1 cases (100.0%)

Case History

Displaying all 31 cases

No.	Case	Decision Date	Party & Outcome
1	Public Prosecutor v Raj Kumar: Trafficking Cannabis under Misuse of Drugs Act 14 Jun 2020 Public Prosecutor (Prosecution)Won	14 Jun 2020	Public Prosecutor (Prosecution): ConvictionThe Prosecution successfully convicted both accused.
2	Tay Wee Kiat v Public Prosecutor: Determining Commencement Dates for Sentences and Varying Compensation Order 19 Sep 2019 Public Prosecutor (Respondent, Appellant)Lost	19 Sep 2019	Public Prosecutor (Respondent, Appellant): Request for further directions in relation to compensation declinedThe court declined to exercise its powers to make further directions in relation to compensation or to consider if any other orders should be made under s 360(1) of the CPC.
3	Public Prosecutor v Khoo Kwee Hock Leslie: Murder, Diminished Responsibility, Provocation, and Sudden Fight 16 Sep 2019 Public Prosecutor (Plaintiff)Won	16 Sep 2019	Public Prosecutor (Plaintiff): Judgment for PlaintiffThe defendant was convicted of murder.
4	Ho Mei Xia Hannah v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Sentence for Offences Against Public Servants 09 Sep 2019 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Won	09 Sep 2019	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Appeal UpheldThe Public Prosecutor's position was upheld as the appeal was dismissed.
5	Public Prosecutor v. Low Ji Qing: Sentencing Principles, Proportionality, and Mentally Disordered Offenders 25 Jul 2019 Public Prosecutor (Appellant)Lost	25 Jul 2019	Public Prosecutor (Appellant): Appeal DismissedThe Prosecution's appeal against the sentence imposed by the District Judge was dismissed.
6	Kong Hoo v Public Prosecutor: Interpreting 'In Transit' under the Endangered Species Act 07 Apr 2019 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Lost	07 Apr 2019	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Appeal DismissedAppeal dismissed; convictions of the applicants were quashed.
7	Mohamed Affandi v Public Prosecutor: Drug Trafficking, Chain of Evidence 04 Dec 2018 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Lost	04 Dec 2018	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Appeal AllowedThe Court of Appeal allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction.
8	Public Prosecutor v Kong Peng Yee: Culpable Homicide & Sentencing of Mentally Disordered Offenders 26 Jun 2018 Public Prosecutor (Appellant)Partial	26 Jun 2018	Public Prosecutor (Appellant): Appeal Allowed in PartThe Prosecution's appeal was allowed in part, with the High Court's sentence of two years' imprisonment enhanced to six years' imprisonment.
9	Public Prosecutor v Chia Kee Chen: Murder, Common Intention, and Sentencing 26 Jun 2018 Public Prosecutor (Appellant, Respondent)Won	26 Jun 2018	Public Prosecutor (Appellant, Respondent): Appeal AllowedThe Prosecution's appeal against the sentence was allowed, and the sentence of life imprisonment was substituted with the death sentence.
10	PP v Raveen Balakrishnan: Sentencing for Unrelated Offences & Totality Principle 25 Jun 2018 Public Prosecutor (Appellant)Partial	25 Jun 2018	Public Prosecutor (Appellant): Appeal Allowed in PartThe Prosecution's appeal was allowed in part, with the sentences ordered to run consecutively, resulting in an aggregate sentence of four and a half years' imprisonment and nine strokes of the cane.
11	Tay Wee Kiat v Public Prosecutor: Domestic Maid Abuse Compensation Appeal 07 May 2018 Public Prosecutor (Respondent, Appellant)Won	07 May 2018	Public Prosecutor (Respondent, Appellant): Appeal AllowedThe Public Prosecutor's appeal for compensation was partially allowed (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
12	Tay Wee Kiat v Public Prosecutor: Maid Abuse Conviction and Sentencing Appeal 01 Mar 2018 Public Prosecutor (Respondent, Appellant)Partial	01 Mar 2018	Public Prosecutor (Respondent, Appellant): Appeal Allowed in PartAppeal against sentence allowed in part for Tay Wee Kiat, but dismissed for Chia Yun Ling.
13	PP v Yeo Ek Boon: Sentencing for Voluntarily Causing Hurt to a Police Officer 28 Nov 2017 Public Prosecutor (Appellant, Applicant)Won	28 Nov 2017	Public Prosecutor (Appellant, Applicant): Appeal AllowedThe appeal against the sentence was allowed, and the sentence was increased to ten weeks' imprisonment.
14	Public Prosecutor v Kong Peng Yee: Culpable Homicide and Sentencing of Mentally Disordered Offender 15 Oct 2017 Public Prosecutor (Prosecution)Partial	15 Oct 2017	Public Prosecutor (Prosecution): PartialThe Public Prosecutor sought a sentence of nine years’ imprisonment, but the court imposed a sentence of two years’ imprisonment.
15	PP v Mohamad Fadzli & Mohamed Affandi: Drug Trafficking under Misuse of Drugs Act 25 Sep 2017 Public Prosecutor (Prosecution)Partial	25 Sep 2017	Public Prosecutor (Prosecution): PartialThe prosecution succeeded in convicting both accused on some charges but not all.
16	Tan Gek Young v Public Prosecutor: Illicit Sale of Codeine Cough Preparations 16 Aug 2017 Public Prosecutor (Respondent, Appellant)Partial	16 Aug 2017	Public Prosecutor (Respondent, Appellant): Appeal dismissed in partAppeal against sentence dismissed in part; individual sentences varied, aggregate sentence remains. Assumed SGD as the judgment originates from Singapore.
17	PP v Kong Hoo: Endangered Species Act & Rosewood Import 25 May 2017 Public Prosecutor (Appellant)Won	25 May 2017	Public Prosecutor (Appellant): Appeal AllowedThe Prosecution's appeal against the acquittals was allowed.
18	Public Prosecutor v Kong Hoo: Endangered Species Act Import Violation 29 Mar 2017 Public Prosecutor (Appellant)Won	29 Mar 2017	Public Prosecutor (Appellant): Appeal AllowedThe appeal was allowed, and the respondents were convicted of the charges.
19	Harven v Public Prosecutor: Trafficking in Controlled Drugs & Rebutting Presumption of Knowledge under Misuse of Drugs Act 09 Mar 2017 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Lost	09 Mar 2017	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Appeal DismissedThe appeal was dismissed.
20	PP v Wong Wee Keong: Endangered Species Act & Illegal Rosewood Import 04 May 2016 Public Prosecutor (Appellant)Won	04 May 2016	Public Prosecutor (Appellant): Appeal AllowedThe appeal was allowed, the order of acquittal was set aside, and the case was remitted to the District Judge for the defence to be called.
21	Chong Han Rui v Public Prosecutor: Parity Principle in Sentencing of Co-Offenders 25 Feb 2016 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Lost	25 Feb 2016	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Appeal DismissedThe appeal was allowed, overturning the original sentence.
22	Public Prosecutor v Chairul: Importation of Methamphetamine under the Misuse of Drugs Act 26 Oct 2015 Public Prosecutor (Prosecution)Won	26 Oct 2015	Public Prosecutor (Prosecution): Judgment for ProsecutionThe accused was convicted under s 7 of the Misuse of Drugs Act.
23	PP v Muhammad & Yu: Drug Trafficking under Misuse of Drugs Act - Death Penalty Imposed 01 Sep 2015 Public Prosecutor (Prosecution)Won	01 Sep 2015	Public Prosecutor (Prosecution): Conviction and death penalty imposedBoth accused were convicted and sentenced to death.
24	Public Prosecutor v Chum Tat Suan: Importation of Diamorphine and Application of Misuse of Drugs Act Amendments 08 Jun 2015 Public Prosecutor (Prosecution)Neutral	08 Jun 2015	Public Prosecutor (Prosecution): NeutralThe court maintained its finding that the accused was only a courier.
25	Poh Boon Kiat v PP: Online Vice Ring, Women's Charter & Sentencing Principles 24 Sep 2014 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Partial	24 Sep 2014	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Partial LossThe Public Prosecutor's original sentencing request was partially overturned.
26	Public Prosecutor v Mahesvaran: Drug Importation & Sentencing 16 Sep 2014 Public Prosecutor (Prosecution)Won	16 Sep 2014	Public Prosecutor (Prosecution): Judgment for the ProsecutionAccused was found guilty as charged.
27	PP v Ho Wei Yi: Culpable Homicide, Mental Disorder, and Sentencing 13 May 2014 Public Prosecutor (Prosecution)Won	13 May 2014	Public Prosecutor (Prosecution): Judgment for the ProsecutionAccused sentenced to 8 years’ imprisonment.
28	Muhammad Saiful bin Ismail v Public Prosecutor: Appeal Against Disqualification Order 25 Feb 2014 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Lost	25 Feb 2014	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Appeal LostThe appeal was allowed, and the disqualification order was changed to commence from the date of the appellant's conviction.
29	Selvi v Attorney-General: Coroner's Inquiry & Death in Custody 31 Oct 2013 Attorney-General (Respondent)Won	31 Oct 2013	Attorney-General (Respondent): Application for leave dismissedApplication for leave to apply for judicial review was dismissed; applicant ordered to pay costs of $1,000 (assumed SGD, as the judgment originates from Singapore).
30	PP v Chaw Aiang Wah: Culpable Homicide and Deterrent Sentencing for 'Face Rage' Incident 04 Aug 2004 Public Prosecutor (Prosecution)Won	04 Aug 2004	Public Prosecutor (Prosecution): ConvictionAccused was convicted of culpable homicide.
31	Tan Puay Boon v Public Prosecutor: Falsification of Accounts under Penal Code s 477A 17 Aug 2003 Public Prosecutor (Respondent)Won	17 Aug 2003	Public Prosecutor (Respondent): Appeal DismissedThe Public Prosecutor successfully defended the appeal.