Hennedige Oliver v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 18 September 1985
• Date: 18 September 1985
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 83 of 1984
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Hennedige Oliver

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[1985] SGHC 25

Lai Kew Chai J

Magistrate's Appeal No 83 of 1984

High Court

Criminal Law–Statutory offences–Using premises as unregistered factory–Whether dental technicians “employed in manual labour”–Sections 6 (1) and 9 (1) Factories Act 1973 (Act 6 of 1973)

The appellant was charged with illegally using his premises as an unregistered factory by employing two dental technicians to manufacture dentures on his premises contrary to s 9 (1) of the Factories Act 1973 (Act 6 of 1973) (“the Act”). The appellant argued that the technicians were not “employed in manual labour” within the meaning of the expression in s 6 (1) of the Act but conceded that all the other elements of the charge had been made out. The district judge rejected the appellant's argument and convicted him. He appealed against his conviction.

Held, dismissing the appeal:

(1) What was “manual labour” was a question of law. In approaching the construction of the words in the Act, it was neither helpful to be emotional nor permissible to allow oneself to be a prisoner of the colloquial usage and meaning of the words “manual labour”. The application of the Act was not limited to unskilled manual labour but also included skilled manual labour. It should be remembered that the Act was a piece of social legislation designed to ensure the health, safety and satisfactory conditions of work for workers: at [31] and [32].

(2) The dental technicians were employed in manual labour because their products were not creations of their own. The dentures were produced from impressions and instructions given by the dental surgeons who, together with the patients, always had the final say as to the aesthetic, functional and emotional acceptabilities of the dentures: at [30].

Gardner, Appeal of; Re Maschek; Re Tyrrell [1938] 1 All ER 20 (refd)

J & F Stone Lighting & Radio Ltd v Haygarth [1968] AC 157 (folld)

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 113, 1970 Rev Ed) s 370

Factories Act 1973 (Act 6 of 1973) ss 6 (1), 9 (1) (consd); s 88 (2)

Factories Act 1961 (c 34) (UK) s 175

Joseph Grimberg (Drew & Napier) for the appellant

Tan Teow Yeow (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the respondent.

Lai Kew Chai J

1 The appellant, Oliver Hennedige, a dental surgeon and the sole proprietor of Oliver Dental Surgery, was convicted by District Court No 16 of having used the premises at 294 Tanjong Katong Road, Singapore (“the premises”) as an unregistered factory contrary to and punishable under s 9 (1) of the Factories Act 1973 (“the Act”). He was sentenced to a fine of $1,000 or, in default, one month's imprisonment. Being dissatisfied with the decision of the learned district judge, the appellant brought this appeal before the High Court.

2 The sole question canvassed before me was whether the two dental technicians employed on the premises in the manufacture, principally of dentures, were “employed in manual labour” within the meaning of that expression in s 6 (1) of the Act. Save and except the sole question in issue in this appeal, the appellant has at all material times conceded that the Prosecution had made out all the ingredients of a “factory” so far as the premises were concerned. It was therefore conceded that the Prosecution had proved: (a) that the two dental technicians were employed; (b) that they were employed in the making of an “article” designated in s 6 (1) (a) of the Act; (c) that the work carried on in the premises was carried on by way of trade or for the purposes of gain; and (d) that the premises were premises to or over which the appellant as the employer of the two dental technicians had the right of access or control.

3 It was also undisputed at the trial that by virtue of s 88 (2) of the Act the burden was on the appellant to prove that the premises were not a factory and that the standard of proof required of the appellant was no higher than proving on a balance of probabilities.

4 At the trial both the Prosecution and the Defence very properly and sensibly took advantage of the procedure laid down in s 370 of the Criminal Procedure Code and accordingly adduced a large part of the evidence by way of written statements of witnesses, subject to the right of each side to cross-examine the other's witnesses on their statements. In this way, the Prosecution tendered seven statements and the defendant three.

5 According to the evidence of Mr Soh Hon Poh, a technical officer attached to the Factory Inspectorate of the Ministry of Labour who inspected the premises on two occasions, the premises consisted of four surgery rooms and one workroom. The premises had a waiting area which began from the entrance of the surgery, abutting the four surgery rooms and the workroom. The appellant and three other dental surgeons under his employment, including Mr K Kunaratnam, worked in the four surgery rooms. The workroom, which was air-conditioned, was used to make acrylic dentures. The appellant employed two dental technicians, Ang Seng Hock and Kong Chein, a deaf mute, to fabricate dentures.

6 Inside the workroom were found two Bunsen burners, two electrically-powered dental lathes for polishing and grinding, two electrically-powered and hand-held trimmers, a bottle of acrylic monomer liquid, a bottle of acrylic polymer powder, a manual press, some hand pieces, a couple of wax sheets, plaster models, dentures, flasks and boxes of...