Lim Dee Chew v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 03 September 1997
• Neutral Citation: [1997] SGHC 231
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 60 of 1997
• Date: 03 September 1997
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1997
• Plaintiff Counsel: Sant Singh and Gordon Oh (Wee, Tay & Lim)
• Citation: [1997] SGHC 231
• Defendant Counsel: Ng Cheng Thiam (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Appellant rented apartment to overstayer,Immigration Act,Whether appellant could have delegated task of verifying tenant's immigration status,Criminal Law,Harbouring,Overstayer,Presumption of knowledge of tenant's immigration status,ss 57(7), 57(9) & 57(10) Immigration Act (Cap 133, 1995 Ed),Rebuttal of presumption under amendments,Whether presumption rebutted,Immigration,Statutory offences

Judgment:

1.YONG PUNG HOW CJ

In the trial below, the appellant claimed trial to a total of 11 charges under s 57(1)(d) and punishable under s 57(1)(ii) of the Immigration Act (Cap 133, 1995 Ed) (the Act). Midway through the prosecution case, the DPP offered no further evidence on ten of these charges. At the close of the prosecution case, the district judge acquitted the appellant on those ten charges. At the close of the trial, the district judge convicted the appellant of the following charge:

You, Lim Dee Chew, f/44 yrs

NRIC No 0050079H

are charged that you, between the month of March 1996 and 21 October 1996, at Blk 742 Bedok Reservoir Road, unit #01-3119, Singapore did harbour one Li Yaoliang, m/32 yrs, a China national being a person who had overstayed on his visit pass in contravention of s 15(1) of the Immigration Act (Cap 133) and you have thereby committed an offence under s 57(1)(d), punishable under s 57(1)(ii) of the Immigration Act (Cap 133).

She was sentenced to seven months` imprisonment. The appellant appealedagainst both her conviction and sentence. I heard the appeal on 12 August 1997. After listening to the arguments by counsel for the appellant, I dismissed the appeal. I now give my reasons.

2. Prosecution`s case

A raid was conducted at Block 742 Bedok Reservoir Road #01-3119, Singapore on 21 October 1996. Following the raid, several Chinese nationals were arrested. Among them was Li Yao Liang (PW3). PW3 was charged in court for overstaying in Singapore, an offence punishable under s 15(1) of the Act. On 29 October 1996 PW3 pleaded guilty to a charge of overstaying in Singapore for 343 days and was sentenced to serve two months` imprisonment and to receive three strokes of the cane. The appellant was involved as she was the part owner of the apartment, which was raided, having purchased it jointly with her brother on 18 March 1996.

3.In his testimony, PW3 said that at the material time he had been employed as a dishwasher at a curry mee stall located in a coffee shop at Block 739 Bedok Reservoir Road. He was first introduced to the vacant apartment by a person who had just shifted out of it. The appellant was the landlord. PW3 first met the appellant at a prearranged meeting sometime in March 1996. At this meeting the appellant agreed to rent her apartment to him at a rental of $1,100 a month. PW3 agreed to this sum as he had earlier discussed sharing this rental with several other Chinese nationals at $100 per month each.

4.According to PW3, the appellant did not ask him for his passport or his particulars. She also did not ask him to sign any tenancy agreement. She merely informed PW3 that she would call at the apartment to collect the rental. If she did not do so, PW3 was to pay the rent to one Goh See Hock, the proprietor of a hardware store located in the vicinity. PW3 had requested that the rooms be partitioned, as there were both male and female occupants. This was done by Goh on the instructions of the appellant after PW3 and the others moved into the apartment.

5.PW3 stated that he saw the appellant on three occasions after moving into the flat. One of these occasions was when she came to collect rental that was due and the other two occasions were when she came to request payment of the utility charges. According to PW3, on all these occasions she had never asked him or any of the other tenants to produce their passports. She had seen a lot of people living in the apartment but she did not ask how many occupants there were. PW3 informed her however that there were eight or nine persons staying in the flat. The appellant did not question PW3 or any of the other occupiers except to tell him that there should not be too many people staying there, otherwise the place would be dirty. All the other tenants who testified during the trial gave evidence that the appellant had not asked any of them for their passports.

6.Prosecution`s case was essentially that PW3 had been convicted on 29 October 1996 for an offence of overstaying in Singapore for a period of 343 days after the expiry of the social visit pass issued to him. The appellant rented her apartment to PW3 whilst he was an overstayer thereby providing him with shelter until his arrest on 21 October 1996. By renting the apartment to PW3 the appellantwould have known that he would be occupying the apartment which he did and as such the appellant had provided shelter to PW3 within the meaning on s 57(7) of the Act.

7. Defence`s case

The appellant did not dispute that she was the owner of the said apartment, having purchased it from the Housing Development Board in 1996. The apartment is part of a two-storey premises with the ground floor also owned by her and used as a shop house for her business.

8.She had been introduced to PW3, a female Chinese shown in exh D1 and another male Chinese by Goh, the proprietor of the hardware shop. She had first seen PW3 in September 1995 at the coffeeshop at the ground floor of Block 739 which is next to her block. He was either preparing food or setting up tables. She had also seen the other two persons she was later introduced to.

9.At her first meeting with the three of them in Goh`s shop, she agreed to rent the apartment to them for $1100 a month excluding PUB charges. According to the appellant, she had asked all three of them for their passports as she knew they were Chinese nationals. They told her they would show their passports to her later. At the material time in February 1996 the female Chinese in D1 was pregnant and PW3 had introduced her as his wife.

10.After they moved in, from March until October 1996 she was paid rentals by PW3 to whom she issued rent receipts (exh P12). At times she received the rental from Goh, presumably when PW3 had paid the rental to him and on occasions from the female Chinese in D1.

11.As PW3 did not produce his passport, as he said he would at their first meeting in February 1996, she asked him for his passport again in March 1996 at her shop. PW3 said he had to page someone and that distracted her and she did not see his passport. The third occasion she asked him for his passport was in June 1996 when she called at the apartment. He was not in and she was told by the female Chinese in D1 whom she assumed was his wife that she would convey the message to PW3 who would produce his passport. Therefore the appellant maintained that she had asked PW3 for his passport on three different occasions.

12.On 13 September 1996 she called at the apartment to collect rental for September that was due and unpaid. She found the apartment in a mess and there were many people there who were unfamiliar to her. PW3 then rushed out and the appellant threatened to stop renting the apartment to him. She was then very angry. PW3 persuaded her to go down to the ground floor where he paid her the rental. The appellant then asked him to move out.

13.PW3 wanted a formal letter in Chinese before agreeing to move out. The appellant therefore approached her friend Ms Keh Youn Kwan (DW2) who prepared the notice (exh D2). The appellant called again at the apartment on 1 October 1996 intending to hand the original of D2 to PW3. However before she reached the flat PW3 saw her and rushed out. He then led her to the ground floor where he handed her the rental for October 1996. She then handed him the original of D2 which PW3 took.

14.The notice (exh D2) was to expire on 31 October 1996. On that day the appellant called at the apartment to check on the condition. When her knocks at the door went unanswered she used the side door through her shop to gain entry. Although the apartment was empty the appellant was shocked to see it in a mess. She immediately proceeded to the nearest police station at Eunos Neighbourhood Police Post to lodge a report. Upon her giving the address of her apartment she was told that the police from Bedok Police Station were looking for her in relation to the renting of the apartment to the Chinese overstayers.

15.The appellant`s defence was essentially that she did not know that PW3 was an illegal immigrant when she rented out her apartment to him. To support this she explained that she was under the impression that he was not an illegal immigrant as she had seen him and the female Chinese in D1 whom she thought was his wife working in the coffee shop at Block 739 for a period of over six months. They were both working openly in the coffee shop which was patronised by several police officers and she never saw them trying to avoid the police officers. She said further that, as the female Chinese in D1 was pregnant, she did not think that PW3 was an illegal immigrant as he had a pregnant wife.

16. The decision below

On analysing the evidence, the district judge accepted prosecution`s submission that the appellant was not particularly bothered whether or not PW3 showed her his passport as long as the rental was paid on time and there were no other problems. The district judge accepted that on the evidence it appeared that the appellant was perfectly happy to let PW3 stay at her apartment and only went to see him at the apartment when her rental was late.

17.The district judge noted that the appellant`s evidence contrasted with that of PW3. PW3 had testified that the appellant had instructed Goh to put up the partitions in the apartment and also that the appellant had never asked him for his passport. The appellant on the other hand claimed that PW3 was lying. The district judge accepted PW3`s evidence as his evidence was supported by the other prosecution witnesses and he had no reason to lie.

18.The district judge considered defence`s submission that the appellant, having seen PW3 and the female Chinese in D1 working openly in the coffeeshop in full view of everyone including policemen and from the fact that the female Chinese was pregnant, it was reasonable for her to form the impression that PW3 was anything but an overstayer. However,...