Public Prosecutor v Koh Peng Kiat and another Appeal
Jurisdiction | Singapore |
Judge | Choo Han Teck J |
Judgment Date | 05 September 2014 |
Neutral Citation | [2014] SGHC 174 |
Plaintiff Counsel | Francis Ng and Suhas Malhotra (Attorney-General's Chambers) |
Docket Number | Magistrate’s Appeal No 144 of 2013/01/02 |
Date | 05 September 2014 |
Hearing Date | 30 May 2014,04 August 2014 |
Subject Matter | Health Products Act,Statutory offences,Trade Marks Act,Criminal law,Abetment |
Year | 2014 |
Citation | [2014] SGHC 174 |
Defendant Counsel | Peter Ong Lip Cheng (Templars Law LLC) |
Court | High Court (Singapore) |
Published date | 08 September 2014 |
These two magistrate’s appeals arise from the District Court’s decision in
After a ten day trial, the District Judge convicted Koh on 14 charges. The first two are charges under s 49(
Importing or selling, etc., goods with falsely applied trade mark 49. Any person who —…
(
c ) has in his possession for the purpose of trade or manufacture,any goods to which a registered trade mark is falsely applied shall, unless he proves that —
(i) having taken all reasonable precautions against committing an offence under this section, he had, at the time of the commission of the alleged offence, no reason to suspect the genuineness of the mark and on demand made by or on behalf of the prosecution, he gave all the information in his power with respect to the persons from whom he obtained the goods; or(ii) he had acted innocently,be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $10,000 for each goods or thing to which the trade mark is falsely applied (but not exceeding in the aggregate $100,000) or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years or to both.
Abetment of the doing of a thing 107. A person abets the doing of a thing who —…
(c ) intentionally aids, by any act or illegal omission, the doing of that thing.Explanation 2. – Whoever, either prior to or at the time of the commission of an act, does anything in order to facilitate the commission thereof, is said to aid the doing of that act.[Explanation 1 and Illustration omitted]
Punishment of abetment if the act abetted is committed in consequence, and where no express provision is made for its punishment
109. Whoever abets any offence shall, if the act abetted is committed in consequence of the abetment, and no express provision is made by this Code for the punishment of such abetment, be punished with the punishment provided for the offence.[Explanation and Illustrations omitted]
The first charge alleges that Koh abetted the offence by intentionally aiding Neo Teck Soon to have in his possession for the purpose of trade 100 boxes of these counterfeit contact lenses. The second alleges that Koh abetted the offence by intentionally aiding Wong Chow Fatt to have in his possession for the purpose of trade 30 boxes of counterfeit contact lenses.
The remaining 12 charges are under s 16(1)(
Prohibition against supply of health products that are adulterated, counterfeits, etc. 16. —(1) No person shall supply, or procure or arrange for the supply of, any health product which is —…(b ) a counterfeit health product;…(2) Any person who contravenes subsection (1) shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction —
…(b ) in the case of an offence under subsection (1)(a ), (b ) or (c ), to a fine not exceeding $100,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 years or to both.(3) In any proceedings for an offence under subsection (1), it shall be a defence for the accused to prove that —
(a ) he —(i) did not know;(ii) had no reason to believe; and(iii) could not, with reasonable diligence, have ascertained,that the health product was in contravention of that subsection; and(b ) he had taken all such precautions and exercised all such due diligence as could reasonably be expected of him in the circumstances to ensure that the health product did not contravene that subsection.
The first 6 charges under s 16(1)(
Koh was fined $38,000 (in default 5 months and 18 months imprisonment). This is the sum total of the following:
I will first consider Koh’s appeal against conviction. Koh’s lawyer made the following arguments in respect of the first two charges:
In
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Public Prosecutor v Koh Peng Kiat
...facts The questions referred to us arose from the High Court’s decision in Public Prosecutor v Koh Peng Kiat and another appeal [2014] 4 SLR 703 (“the Judgment”) to allow the appeal of Koh Peng Kiat (“the Respondent”) against his convictions by the District Court. We should highlight at the......
-
Public Prosecutor v Koh Peng Kiat
...facts The questions referred to us arose from the High Court’s decision in Public Prosecutor v Koh Peng Kiat and another appeal [2014] 4 SLR 703 (“the Judgment”) to allow the appeal of Koh Peng Kiat (“the Respondent”) against his convictions by the District Court. We should highlight at the......
-
Public Prosecutor v Timothy Nicholas Goldring, Geraldine Anthony Thomas and John Andrew Nordmann
...the food was indeed unfit for human consumption.” The above passage was approved and applied in the High Court in PP v Koh Peng Kiat [2014] SGHC 174 at I am unable to accept, beyond reasonable doubt, that Geraldine Nordmann had any knowledge of whether any or significant sales of Boron lubr......
-
Public Prosecutor v Qiao Mu
...Submissions See paragraph 10-21 of Prosecution Closing Submission 77 This was the view taken by the High Court in PP v Koh Peng Kiat [2014] 4 SLR 703 at See paragraph 28-60 of Prosecution Closing Submission and paragraph 2-11 of Prosecution’s Reply Submission 79 NE Day 8 page 20 80 See para......