Leaw Siat Chong v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 20 November 2001
• Neutral Citation: [2001] SGHC 345
• Date: 20 November 2001
• Subject Matter: Ill health,s 57(1)(e) Immigration Act (Cap 133, 1997 Ed),Appellant of advanced age,Sentencing,Whether sentence manifestly excessive,Financial hardship to appellant's family,Imposition of benchmark sentence of 12 months' imprisonment,Appellant employing immigration offender,First offender,Need to balance mitigating factors against other factors,Short period of employment of immigration offender,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Mitigating factors
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 190 of 2001
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Winston Cheng (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Goh Siok Leng and Goh E Pei (Leong Goh Danker & Subra)

: The appellant was charged and convicted under s 57(1)(e) of the Immigration Act (Cap 133, 1997 Ed) (`the Act`) on one count of employing immigration offenders, namely one Ramadose Nagarajan (`Ramadose`), an Indian national, and was sentenced to 12 months` imprisonment. Although the appeal was initially stated to be against both conviction and sentence, it became apparent from the appellant`s submissions as well as at the hearing before me that the appellant had decided not to proceed on the appeal against conviction. I dismissed his appeal against sentence and now give my reasons.

The facts

The appellant was driving workers to a construction site on Sentosa on 12 February 2001 when his vehicle was stopped in order for the identification papers of the workers to be checked. It was discovered that Ramadose possessed neither a passport nor a valid work permit, although he was carrying a photocopied work permit in another person`s name. Ramadose was subsequently convicted of overstaying in Singapore.

The trial below

Before the trial judge, the appellant claimed that Ramadose was not his employee, and had only been on his vehicle on the day in question as the appellant was in the habit of giving rides to workers. He also attempted to exonerate himself by explaining away the incriminatory portions of his cautioned statement to the police. Furthermore, Ramadose, who had previously given a statement to the police stating that the appellant was his employer, retracted his statement on the stand. However, the prosecution applied successfully for Ramadose`s credit to be impeached, and the police statement was accepted into evidence.

The trial judge disbelieved the appellant`s defence, finding that the appellant had wilfully shut his eyes to Ramadose`s being an immigration offender, and convicted him of the charge. In imposing the sentence of 12 months` imprisonment, the trial judge noted that 12 months` imprisonment is the benchmark sentence for offences under s 57(1)(e), and that the appellant had not provided any exceptional reasons to justify a departure from the benchmark.

The present appeal

Before me, the appellant contended that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive in light of his personal circumstances, which had not been raised in mitigation before the trial judge. Furthermore, there were features of his employment of Ramadose which justified a reduction in sentence. Finally, the appellant pointed out that in Ang Jwee Herng v PP [2001] 2 SLR 474 , a sentence of nine months` imprisonment had been imposed for each charge, while in Elizabeth Usha v PP [2001] 2 SLR 60 , a sentence of six months` imprisonment had been imposed on each charge. Consequently, he argued that his sentence should likewise be reduced by a few months.

FEATURES OF THE APPELLANT`S EMPLOYMENT OF RAMADOSE

The appellant raised three issues under this head, namely that: he had taken steps to verify Ramadose`s immigration status; he had only employed Ramadose for a short period of time; and he...