Sze Pak Hei Gabriel (formerly known as Gabriel See Wei Yang) v Public Prosecutor [2025] SGHC 8

Case Details

• Citation: [2025] SGHC 8
• Court: General Division of the High Court of the Republic of Singapore
• Decision Date: 16 January 2025
• Coram: Dedar Singh Gill J
• Case Number: Magistrate’s Appeal No 9070 of 2023/01
• Hearing Date(s): 26 July 2024
• Appellant: Sze Pak Hei, Gabriel (formerly known as Gabriel See Wei Yang)
• Respondent: Public Prosecutor
• Counsel for Appellant: N K Anitha (Anitha & Asoka LLC)
• Counsel for Respondent: Matthew Choo Hou Chong and Kiera Yu Jiaqi (Attorney-General’s Chambers)
• Practice Areas: Criminal Procedure and Sentencing; Criminal Law; Evidence

Summary

The decision in Sze Pak Hei Gabriel (formerly known as Gabriel See Wei Yang) v Public Prosecutor [2025] SGHC 8 serves as a significant appellate clarification on the procedural rigour required for ancillary hearings and the application of curative provisions under the Criminal Procedure Code. The appellant, a pet relocation agent operating Full of Fun House Pte Ltd, was convicted of eight counts of forgery under section 465 of the Penal Code. The charges stemmed from the systematic falsification of veterinary certificates, health certificates, and laboratory reports from the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) to facilitate the import and export of five dogs: Kiki, Kibu, Bamboo, Coffee, and Panda. The District Court sentenced the appellant to 14 months’ imprisonment, a decision which the appellant challenged on both conviction and sentence.

The central doctrinal contribution of this judgment lies in its treatment of procedural irregularities during ancillary hearings. The appellant contended that the trial judge erred by failing to conduct a second ancillary hearing to determine the accuracy of his police statement (Exhibit P3) after the first ancillary hearing had already established its voluntariness. Dedar Singh Gill J, presiding in the High Court, dismissed the appeal, holding that even if a procedural irregularity had occurred, it did not occasion a "failure of justice" within the meaning of section 423(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court emphasized that the safety of a conviction is the paramount consideration, and where the evidence of guilt is overwhelming, technical procedural lapses that do not undermine the fairness of the trial will not warrant a reversal.

Furthermore, the judgment provides a deep dive into the "two-stage test" for the admissibility of statements under section 258(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The Court meticulously analyzed the interplay between an accused person’s neurodivergent conditions—specifically Asperger’s Syndrome, ADHD, and Dyslexia—and the voluntariness of statements made during police interrogations. The Court affirmed that the mere existence of such conditions does not automatically render a statement involuntary; rather, there must be evidence that these conditions were exploited or that they rendered the accused particularly susceptible to the specific threats or inducements alleged.

Ultimately, the High Court upheld the 14-month sentence, finding it consistent with sentencing precedents for forgery where the offender’s conduct undermines the integrity of regulatory frameworks. The case underscores the high threshold for challenging the voluntariness of statements and the robust application of section 423(a) to maintain the finality of safe convictions despite minor procedural deviations.

Timeline of Events

1. 25 March 2008: The appellant is convicted of an offence under section 182 of the Penal Code, a prior antecedent considered during sentencing in the present case.
2. 12 December 2012: A date associated with the forged signature of Dr Rajaram Karthik Raja on a health certificate (Exhibit P4) for the dog Kiki.
3. 28 January 2013: A secondary date related to the falsification of Exhibit P4.
4. 20 February 2016: The date appearing on a forged AVA laboratory report for the dog Bamboo (Exhibit P7).
5. 20 March 2016: Another date appearing on the forged laboratory report for Bamboo (Exhibit P7).
6. 19 July 2016: The date appearing on a forged AVA laboratory report for the dog Coffee (Exhibit P10).
7. 1 August 2016: The date appearing on a forged AVA laboratory report for the dog Panda (Exhibit P11).
8. 2 August 2016: The date appearing on a second forged AVA laboratory report for the dog Panda (Exhibit P14).
9. 11 August 2016: IO Lim Wee Chern records the appellant’s statement (Exhibit P3) at the police station, which became the subject of the first ancillary hearing.
10. 5 September 2016: A subsequent statement by the appellant is recorded (Exhibit P9).
11. 7 September 2016: A date associated with the contents of Exhibit P9.
12. 23 August 2019: A date appearing on a forged application for animal health laboratory services (Exhibit P61).
13. 20 March 2020: A secondary date appearing on Exhibit P61.
14. 26 July 2024: The substantive hearing of the Magistrate’s Appeal before Dedar Singh Gill J.
15. 16 January 2025: The High Court delivers its judgment, dismissing the appeal against conviction and sentence.

What Were the Facts of This Case?

The appellant, Sze Pak Hei Gabriel, operated Full of Fun House Pte Ltd, a company specializing in pet relocation services. Between 2012 and 2020, the appellant was involved in the import and export of several dogs, during which he allegedly forged various documents required by the Agri-Food and Veterinary Authority of Singapore (AVA) and foreign authorities. The prosecution brought eight charges of forgery under section 465 of the Penal Code, each relating to specific documents and animals.

The first three charges concerned the export of a dog named Kiki to Taiwan. The appellant was accused of forging a health certificate (Exhibit P4) by fraudulently appending the signature of Dr Rajaram Karthik Raja ("Dr Raj"). Additionally, he forged two veterinary certificates (Exhibits P5 and P8) by fraudulently appending the signatures of Dr June Tan and Ms Lee Seen Yin, respectively. These documents were essential for the dog to clear quarantine and meet the entry requirements of the destination country.

The remaining five charges related to the import of four dogs—Kibu, Bamboo, Coffee, and Panda—into Singapore. The appellant allegedly forged AVA laboratory reports by altering the results of rabies antibody tests. For the dog Kibu (Charge 4), the appellant forged a laboratory report (Exhibit P2). For Bamboo (Charge 5), he forged a report (Exhibit P7). For Coffee (Charge 6), he forged a report (Exhibit P10). For Panda (Charges 7 and 8), he forged two reports (Exhibits P11 and P14) and an application for animal health laboratory services (Exhibit P61) by appending Dr Raj’s signature without authorization.

The prosecution’s case was built on a combination of documentary evidence, witness testimony, and the appellant’s own statements. Key witnesses included Dr Raj and Dr June Tan, who testified that they had not signed the documents in question. AVA and Changi Animal & Plant Quarantine staff testified to the discrepancies in the documents submitted by the appellant. Crucially, the prosecution relied on two police statements made by the appellant: Exhibit P3 (dated 11 August 2016) and Exhibit P9 (dated 5 September 2016). In Exhibit P3, the appellant had made several admissions regarding the preparation of the forged documents.

The appellant’s defence was multifaceted. He denied committing the forgeries, suggesting instead that a third party, Jason Lim, might have been responsible for the documents. He also challenged the admissibility of his police statements. Regarding Exhibit P3, the appellant claimed it was made involuntarily due to the conduct of IO Lim Wee Chern, whom he alleged had shouted, banged the table, and threatened him by saying "I will squeeze you." Furthermore, the appellant argued that his neurodivergent conditions—Asperger’s Syndrome, ADHD, and Dyslexia—rendered him susceptible to such pressure and that the IO had recorded statements he did not actually make. This led to a contentious ancillary hearing during the trial to determine the admissibility of Exhibit P3.

The District Judge (DJ) found that the statements were voluntary and admitted them into evidence. The DJ also found that the prosecution had proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellant was the person who forged the documents, noting that the appellant’s particulars were linked to the electronic and hardcopy applications for the forged certificates. The appellant was convicted on all eight counts and sentenced to 14 months' imprisonment. On appeal, the appellant sought to overturn these convictions, primarily focusing on the procedural handling of the ancillary hearing and the weight given to his mental conditions.

What Were the Key Legal Issues?

The appeal raised several critical legal issues concerning criminal procedure and the law of evidence in Singapore:

• Issue 1: Admissibility of Exhibit P3 (Voluntariness): Whether the DJ erred in finding that Exhibit P3 was made voluntarily under section 258(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, specifically considering the appellant's neurodivergent conditions and the alleged threats by the IO.
• Issue 2: Admissibility of Exhibit P9: Whether Exhibit P9 was tainted by the same alleged involuntariness that affected Exhibit P3.
• Issue 3: Procedural Irregularity in the Ancillary Hearing: Whether the DJ erred by failing to conduct a separate ancillary hearing to determine the accuracy of Exhibit P3’s contents, as distinct from its voluntariness.
• Issue 4: Application of Section 423(a) CPC: Whether any procedural irregularity in the ancillary hearing occasioned a "failure of justice" that would necessitate reversing the conviction.
• Issue 5: Sufficiency of Evidence for Forgery: Whether the prosecution had proven that the appellant was the individual who forged the eight documents, given the appellant's claim that Jason Lim was the culprit.
• Issue 6: Sentencing: Whether the 14-month imprisonment term was manifestly excessive, particularly in light of the appellant's mental conditions and the age of the offences.

These issues required the High Court to balance the protection of an accused person's rights during interrogation with the practical necessity of the "failure of justice" test to prevent the overturning of safe convictions on purely technical grounds.

How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?

The High Court’s analysis began with the admissibility of the appellant’s statements, which formed a cornerstone of the prosecution’s case. Under section 258(3) of the Criminal Procedure Code, a statement is inadmissible if it is obtained by any inducement, threat, or promise. The Court applied the well-established "two-stage test" to determine voluntariness: (a) an objective stage—whether there was a threat, inducement, or promise; and (b) a subjective stage—whether that threat, inducement, or promise operated on the mind of the accused to the extent that his will was overborne.

Regarding the alleged threats by IO Lim Wee Chern, the Court scrutinized the appellant’s claim that the IO had shouted and used the phrase "I will squeeze you." The Court noted that the threshold for "oppression" or "threat" is high, citing [2023] SGCA 30. Dedar Singh Gill J found that even if the IO had been firm or raised his voice, this did not necessarily constitute a threat that would render a statement involuntary. The Court observed at [65] that the threshold is high and must involve conduct that saps the free will of the accused. The appellant’s neurodivergent conditions (Asperger’s, ADHD, Dyslexia) were considered, but the Court found no evidence that these conditions made the appellant particularly vulnerable to the specific conduct of the IO. The Court relied on [2005] SGCA 11 to emphasize that the trial judge is best placed to assess the credibility of witnesses regarding what transpired during the recording of a statement.

The most complex procedural issue was the appellant’s claim that a second ancillary hearing should have been held to determine the accuracy of Exhibit P3. The appellant argued that the IO had typed responses that the appellant did not provide. The Court analyzed the distinction between voluntariness and accuracy. While voluntariness is a condition for admissibility, accuracy generally goes to the weight of the evidence. However, the Court acknowledged that where an accused person claims he never made the statement at all (a challenge to the fact of the statement), an ancillary hearing may be required. The Court referred to Rajendran s/o Kurusamy and others v Public Prosecutor [1998] 2 SLR(R) 814 and Lim Thian Lai v Public Prosecutor [2006] 1 SLR(R) 319.

Dedar Singh Gill J held that the appellant had not clearly raised a challenge to the accuracy of the statement during the first ancillary hearing in a manner that would have alerted the DJ to the need for a second hearing. More importantly, the Court invoked section 423(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code, which states:

"Subject to the provisions of this Code, no finding, sentence or order passed by a court of competent jurisdiction shall be reversed or altered on appeal or revision on account of any error, omission or irregularity in the complaint, summons, warrant, charge, proclamation, order, judgment or other proceedings before or during trial... unless such error, omission, irregularity... has occasioned a failure of justice." (at [35])

The Court applied the test from [2022] 3 SLR 689, asking whether the irregularity rendered the judgment unsafe. Given the "overwhelming" documentary evidence—including the fact that the appellant’s own email and contact details were used to apply for the forged documents—the Court concluded that the conviction was safe even if a second ancillary hearing had been omitted. The Court noted that the appellant had the opportunity to challenge the accuracy of the statement during the main trial and had done so, but the DJ found his explanations unconvincing.

On the merits of the forgery charges, the Court found no reason to disturb the DJ's findings. The signatures of Dr Raj and Dr June Tan were clearly forged, and the AVA reports had been altered. The appellant’s attempt to shift blame to "Jason Lim" was rejected as there was no evidence of Jason Lim’s involvement in the specific acts of forgery. The Court noted that the appellant was the sole person who stood to benefit from the relocation services provided to the pet owners.

Finally, regarding sentencing, the Court considered the appellant’s antecedent under section 182 of the Penal Code. Although the conviction was from 2008, the Court held it was relevant as it also involved dishonesty towards a public servant. The Court distinguished the appellant’s mental conditions from cases where such conditions significantly reduce culpability, finding that the appellant’s conditions did not prevent him from understanding the nature and wrongfulness of his actions. The 14-month sentence was deemed appropriate to reflect the harm to the integrity of Singapore's regulatory and veterinary systems.

What Was the Outcome?

The High Court dismissed the appeal in its entirety, upholding both the convictions on all eight counts of forgery and the sentence of 14 months’ imprisonment. The Court found that the District Judge had correctly applied the law regarding the admissibility of statements and that the evidence of the appellant's guilt was substantial and compelling.

The operative paragraph of the judgment states:

"I dismiss the appeal and set out my reasons below." (at [2])

In terms of the specific orders:

• Conviction: The convictions for eight counts of forgery under section 465 of the Penal Code were affirmed. The Court was satisfied that the appellant was the author of the forged signatures and the person responsible for altering the AVA laboratory reports.
• Sentence: The sentence of 14 months’ imprisonment was upheld. The Court found that the DJ had properly balanced the aggravating factors—including the appellant's prior antecedent for a related offence of dishonesty and the potential risk to public health posed by falsifying rabies test results—against the mitigating factors, such as the appellant's neurodivergent conditions and the delay in prosecution.
• Costs: No specific order as to costs was recorded in the extracted metadata, following the general rule in criminal appeals that each party bears its own costs unless there is a finding of frivolous or vexatious conduct.

The Court concluded that the procedural complaints raised by the appellant did not undermine the safety of the conviction. The application of section 423(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code was decisive, as the High Court determined that no failure of justice had occurred. The appellant was ordered to commence his sentence as directed by the Court.

Why Does This Case Matter?

This case is a vital authority for practitioners dealing with the intersection of criminal procedure and neurodiversity. It reinforces the principle that while an accused person’s mental condition is a relevant factor in assessing the voluntariness of a statement, it is not a "get out of jail free" card. The judgment clarifies that for a mental condition to render a statement inadmissible, there must be a causal link showing that the condition was exploited or that it made the accused's will particularly susceptible to the specific pressure applied by the police. Practitioners must therefore ensure that medical evidence is not merely diagnostic but also functional, explaining exactly how the condition impacted the accused at the time the statement was recorded.

Furthermore, the decision provides much-needed clarity on the procedural requirements for ancillary hearings. It distinguishes between a challenge to voluntariness (which must be resolved in an ancillary hearing before admission) and a challenge to accuracy (which often goes to weight during the main trial). However, it also acknowledges the "grey area" where an accused person denies the very fact of making the statement. The Court’s reliance on section 423(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code to cure the omission of a second ancillary hearing is a robust reminder that Singapore’s appellate courts prioritize the safety of the conviction over technical procedural perfection. This aligns with the "failure of justice" test articulated in [2022] 3 SLR 689.

In the realm of sentencing, the case highlights the Court’s dim view of forgeries that bypass regulatory safeguards, especially those involving public health and safety (such as rabies testing). The Court’s willingness to consider a 15-year-old antecedent under section 182 of the Penal Code as relevant to the current forgery charges demonstrates that "related" antecedents can have a long shelf life in the eyes of the court if they involve similar traits of dishonesty or deception of public authorities.

Finally, the judgment serves as a cautionary tale for pet relocation agents and other intermediaries. The Court’s finding that the appellant was the "only person who stood to benefit" from the relocation services underscores a common-sense approach to circumstantial evidence in forgery cases. Even in the absence of direct "smoking gun" evidence of the act of forging, the Court will look at the totality of the transaction structure and the digital footprint (emails, contact details) to identify the culprit.

Practice Pointers

• Specific Challenges to Statements: Defense counsel must be extremely precise when challenging police statements. If the challenge is both to voluntariness (e.g., threats) and accuracy (e.g., "I didn't say that"), both must be raised explicitly at the outset of the ancillary hearing to ensure the court addresses each procedural requirement.
• Neurodivergence Evidence: When relying on conditions like Asperger’s or ADHD, practitioners should provide expert evidence that specifically addresses how these conditions affect the client's interaction with authority figures and their susceptibility to pressure during long interrogations.
• Invoking Section 423(a) CPC: For the prosecution, this case is a powerful tool to argue that minor procedural lapses in the lower court should not lead to a reversal of conviction if the underlying evidence of guilt is "overwhelming."
• Documentary Provenance: In forgery cases, focus on the "digital trail." The Court placed significant weight on the fact that the appellant's personal contact details were embedded in the metadata or application forms of the forged documents.
• Antecedents: Be prepared to argue the relevance of old antecedents. If an antecedent involves dishonesty (like s 182 PC), it may be considered "related" to forgery even if it occurred more than a decade prior.
• Ancillary Hearing Strategy: If a client claims the IO "put words in their mouth," this should be framed as a challenge to the "fact of the statement" to trigger the necessary procedural protections, rather than just a general complaint about accuracy.

Subsequent Treatment

As a recent 2025 decision, Sze Pak Hei Gabriel v Public Prosecutor [2025] SGHC 8 represents the current High Court position on the application of section 423(a) of the Criminal Procedure Code to ancillary hearing irregularities. It follows the established lineage of Rajendran s/o Nagarethinam regarding the "failure of justice" test and reinforces the high threshold for "oppression" set in Mustapah bin Abdullah. It is likely to be cited in future cases where neurodivergent accused persons challenge the voluntariness of their statements, providing a framework for how courts should weigh medical diagnoses against the objective facts of the interrogation.

Legislation Referenced

• Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 465, s 182, s 463
• Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 258(1), s 258(3), s 279(3), s 396, s 423, s 423(a)
• Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 213

Cases Cited

• Considered: Rajendran s/o Nagarethinam v Public Prosecutor [2022] 3 SLR 689
• Referred to: Mustapah bin Abdullah v Public Prosecutor [2023] SGCA 30
• Referred to: Public Prosecutor v Mohamed Aliff bin Mohamed Yusoff [2022] SGHC 295
• Referred to: Chew Seow Leng v Public Prosecutor [2005] SGCA 11
• Referred to: Yusof bin A Samad v Public Prosecutor [2000] 3 SLR(R) 115
• Referred to: Fun Seong Chen v Public Prosecutor [1997] 2 SLR(R) 796
• Referred to: Sulaiman bin Jumari v Public Prosecutor [2021] 1 SLR 557
• Referred to: Rajendran s/o Kurusamy and others v Public Prosecutor [1998] 2 SLR(R) 814
• Referred to: Tan Choon Huat v Public Prosecutor [1991] 1 SLR(R) 863
• Referred to: Chai Chien Wei Kelvin v Public Prosecutor [1998] 3 SLR(R) 619
• Referred to: Lim Thian Lai v Public Prosecutor [2006] 1 SLR(R) 319
• Referred to: Tey Tsun Hang v Public Prosecutor [2014] 2 SLR 1189
• Referred to: Muhammad bin Kadar and another v Public Prosecutor [2011] 3 SLR 1205
• Referred to: Koh Aik Siew v PP [1993] 1 SLR(R) 885
• Referred to: Panya Martmontree v PP [1995] 2 SLR(R) 806
• Referred to: Public Prosecutor v Parthiban Kanapathy [2021] 5 SLR 372
• Referred to: Leck Kim Koon v Public Prosecutor [2022] 2 SLR 595
• Referred to: BPH v Public Prosecutor [2019] 2 SLR 764
• Referred to: Lim Ghim Peow v Public Prosecutor [2014] 4 SLR 1287
• Referred to: Idya Nurhazlyn bte Ahmad Khir v Public Prosecutor [2014] 1 SLR 756
• Referred to: Public Prosecutor v Lim Chee Yin Jordon [2018] 4 SLR 1294

Source Documents

• Original Judgment PDF (eLitigation)
• Case Summary on eLitigation