P Shanmugam v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judgment Date: 10 April 2000
• Date: 10 April 2000
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 291 of 1999
• Court: High Court (Singapore)

Shanmugam P

Plaintiff

and

Public Prosecutor

Defendant

[2000] SGHC 57

Yong Pung How CJ

Magistrate's Appeal No 291 of 1999 (Criminal Revision No 7 of 2000)

High Court

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing–Sentencing–Conviction of 12 charges–Whether sentences should be consecutive or concurrent–Whether cumulative sentence offended totality principle––Section 18 Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed)–Immigration–Harbouring–Harbouring and employing immigration offenders–Mandatory caning or fine–Immigration Act (Cap 133, 1997 Rev Ed)–Statutory Interpretation–Construction of statute–Principles of interpretation–Whether caning or fine imposed for each offence or for cumulative offences under s 57 (1) (e)Immigration Act (Cap 133, 1997 Rev Ed)–Sections 57 (1A) and 57 (1B) Immigration Act (Cap 133, 1997 Rev Ed)

Shanmugam pleaded guilty to six charges each of harbouring and employing immigration offenders under ss 57 (1) (d) and 55 (1) (e)of the Immigration Act (Cap 133, 1997 Rev Ed) respectively. Section 57 (1) (ii) provided for mandatory imprisonment for a term of not less than six months, and a discretionary fine not exceeding $6,000 for offences under s 57 (1) (d) or s 57 (1) (e). Shanmugam was sentenced to six months' imprisonment on each of the 12 charges, with six of the sentences to run consecutively and six to run concurrently, making a total of three years' imprisonment.

On appeal, he argued that the sentence was manifestly excessive. As he was 56 years old, he escaped the mandatory caning provided for under s 57 (1A). However, the Prosecution filed a criminal revision on the ground that the judge failed to impose a fine in lieu of caning in accordance with s 57 (1B), and contended that the fine was to be imposed in respect of each individual offence under s 57 (1) (e).

Held, dismissing the appeal and allowing the criminal revision:

(1) Section 18 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) invested the court with the direction as to which and how many of the sentences were to run consecutively, and there was no absolute rule precluding the court from ordering more than two sentences to run consecutively. As Shanmugam was convicted of harbouring and employing six individual immigration offenders, the judge had properly exercised his discretion in ordering six of the sentences to run consecutively. In addition, his sentence of three years' imprisonment was not considered a “crushing sentence”. Hence, his cumulative sentence did not violate either limb of the totality principle: at [6].

(2) The fine provided for under s 57 (1B) was to be imposed in respect of each individual offence and not in respect of the cumulative offences under s 57 (1) (e). On a plain and ordinary reading of s 57 (1A), the caning provided for was to be imposed in addition to the prescribed punishment for each individual offence under s 57 (1) (e), rather than in addition to the punishment for the cumulative offences. Section 57 (1B) was similarly interpreted since it provided for a fine in lieu of caning. This interpretation was purposively supported as well by the general principle that separate sentences should be passed on each separate charge, and the Minister's speech at the Second Reading of the Bill introducing s 57 (1B) : at [18], [19], [21] and [23].

(3) The appeal was dismissed and the sentences affirmed. In addition, a fine of $1,000 on each of the six convictions under s 57 (1) (e)was imposed with one month's imprisonment in default of each fine : at [23].

Bujang Johny v PP [1965] 1 MLJ 72 (folld)

Kanagasuntharam v PP [1991] 2 SLR (R) 874; [1992] 1 SLR 81 (folld)

Maideen Pillai v PP [1995] 3 SLR (R) 706; [1996] 1 SLR 161 (folld)

Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 1985 Rev Ed) s 18 (consd);s 231

Immigration Act (Cap 133, 1997 Rev Ed) ss 57 (1) (e), 57 (1A), 57 (1B) (consd);ss 57 (1) (d), 57 (1) (ii)

Immigration (Amendment) Act 1995 (Act 41 of 1995)

Immigration (Amendment) Act 1998 (Act 34 of 1998)

Immigration (Amendment No 2) Act 1989 (Act 34 of 1989)

Ramesh Tiwary (Leo Fernando) for the appellant

Toh Han Li (Deputy Public Prosecutor) for the respondent.

Yong Pung How CJ

1 In the District Court, the appellant faced 11 charges of harbouring and 11 charges of employing 11 immigration offenders in his restaurant under ss 57 (1) (d) and 57 (1) (e) of the Immigration Act (Cap 133) (“the Act”) respectively. The Prosecution proceeded on, and the appellant pleaded guilty to, six charges of employing immigration offenders under s 57 (1) (e), and six charges of harbouring them under s 57 (1) (d) of the Act. The remaining ten charges were taken into consideration for the purpose of sentencing.

2 Section 57 (1) (ii) of the Act provides that an offender under s 57 (1) (d) or s 57 (1) (e)...