Public Prosecutor v Alagar Balasubramanian
| Judge | Kaur Jasvender |
| Judgment Date | 31 December 2022 |
| Neutral Citation | [2022] SGDC 304 |
| Citation | [2022] SGDC 304 |
| Court | District Court (Singapore) |
| Published date | 10 January 2023 |
| Docket Number | DAC 922624 of 2016 & Ors, Magistrate’s Appeal No. MA-9086-2022-01 |
| Plaintiff Counsel | Han Ming Kuang & Selene Yap Wan Ting (Attorney-General's Chambers) and Mohd Fadhli Mohd Fadzil (MOM Prosecutor) |
| Defendant Counsel | Kalidass Murugaiyan (all dates), Chua Hock Lu (15 to 18 & 22 April 2019, 30 December 2020, 21 February 2022, 31 March 2022, 19 April 2022 & 10 May 2022) & Nithya Devi (21 February 2022, 31 March 2022, 19 April 2022 & 10 May 2022) (Kalidass Law Corporation) |
| Subject Matter | Criminal law,Offences,Labour trafficking,Sections 3(1) and 4(1)(a) Prevention of Human Trafficking Act 2014 |
| Hearing Date | 23 August 2017,24 August 2017,25 August 2017,29 August 2017,10 October 2017,19 October 2017,19 March 2018,26 March 2018,27 March 2018,28 March 2018,17 April 2018,19 July 2018,20 July 2018,24 September 2018,25 September 2018,26 September 2018,27 September 2018,01 October 2018,02 October 2018,03 October 2018,04 October 2018,05 October 2018,29 March 2019,15 April 2019,16 April 2019,17 April 2019,18 April 2019,22 April 2019,23 April 2019,24 April 2019,25 April 2019,26 April 2019,13 May 2019,14 May 2019,16 May 2019,17 May 2019,11 November 2019,12 November 2019,13 November 2019,03 March 2020,04 March 2020,19 March 2020,21 July 2020,08 December 2020,09 December 2020,10 December 2020,14 December 2020,17 December 2020,30 December 2020,18 February 2021,05 May 2021,14 September 2021,21 February 2022,31 March 2022,19 April 2022,10 May 2022 |
This is a labour trafficking case in the entertainment sector at a dance bar called Jaiho Club located at the second floor of 46A Dunlop Street. The labour trafficking took the form of harbouring by means of coercion for the purpose of exploitation,
The three charges to which the accused claimed trial related to three adult females from India who worked as dancers and resided in a room at the third floor of the Club. Their identities are protected by a gag order. For the charge in DAC-922624-2016, the victim will be referred to as TA, for DAC-908828-2017 as KR and in relation to DAC-908830-2017 as CV. The particulars of the three charges are identical and as such only one charge is reproduced below:
DAC 922624-2016 … are charged that you, between 17 February 2016 and 15 June 2016, at unit 46A Dunlop Street, Singapore 209375, did harbour one [TA], by means of coercion, for the purpose of exploitation, to wit, servitude of the said TA in Singapore, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 3(1) of the Prevention of Human Trafficking Act 2014 (Act No. 45 of 2014), and punishable under section 4(1)(a) of the same Act.
Particulars
The accused was convicted after a lengthy trial on the three charges which I was satisfied were proven beyond a reasonable doubt. He was sentenced to a total imprisonment term of 41 months’ and a fine of $27,365, in default 20 weeks’ imprisonment. He was ordered to pay compensation totalling $2,722. The accused has brought this appeal against the conviction and sentence and the compensation order. A stay of execution was granted on the sentence and the order.
Case for the ProsecutionThe accused was in charge of the Club. He had a partner, one Velappan Krishna Kumar (‘Krishna’). The accused managed the daily running of the Club and all affairs relating to the three victims. The accused resided at the Club.
The accused made arrangements for the three dancers to work at the Club. TA arrived in Singapore on 17 February 2016, CV on 11 March 2016 and KR on 8 April 2016. Apart from the three victims, Muthu Vijayan Baskar (‘Baskar’) also worked there as a deejay and bartender and stayed at the club. He too is an Indian national. In addition, Danaraj s/o Pichanayagam (‘Raj’) worked as a cleaner and helped at the bar. He also resided at the Club.
The salient evidence of the witnesses called by the prosecution is summarised below.
Evidence of PW3 – Velloor Krishna Kumar (‘Velloor’)The RR Group of Companies Pte Ltd (‘RR Group’) were the shareholders of the Club. Velloor became a director of RR Group around the fourth quarter of 2014.
On 23 April 2015, the RR Group entered into an agreement (see P17) with Velappan Krishna Kumar (‘Krishna’) for Krishna to operate the Club between 1 May 2015 to 30 April 2016 for a monthly fee of $11,000 for the first three months and $13,000 thereafter. The agreement was signed in the presence of the accused. In March 2016, the revenue of the Club dropped drastically. Consequently, Krishna and the accused were unable to pay the monthly fee in one lump sum. The accused and Krishna requested for a two or three month extension of the agreement to August 2016.
Velloor testified that the accused was in charge of the day to day management of the club. He said the accused would approach him to make online applications for work permits for the dancers. The accused gave him the code to key in their occupation as ‘performing artiste’ and informed him to enter their monthly salary as $800. He confirmed that he made the online work permit application in P10 for TA, in P15 for CV and in P18 for KR, at the request of the accused.
He said the dancers had complained to him that their phones were being withheld. The accused told him the girls would sometimes call the clients directly and he was trying to discourage that. With respect to the girls going out, he was asked in cross-examination1:
Did you specifically tell Bala that the girls are not to be allowed to go off to wander on their own after the club closes?
Evidence of PW5 – Muthu Vijayan Baskar (‘Baskar’)I have not specifically told him that, but I know that he never use to allow that.
Baskar is an Indian national. He worked at the Club between 6 March 2016 to 15 June 2016.
Prior to 2016, Baskar had worked in Singapore. In 2010, he came to know the accused. In February 2016, whilst he was in India, he called the accused to arrange for a job for him. The accused told him that he is running a club and offered him a job to serve liquor and to clean the tables and club premises for a monthly salary of $1,000. Baskar agreed to do the work and the accused made the arrangements for him to work at the Club.
On 5 March 2016, he arrived in Singapore. The accused told him what his duties were and taught him how to do the work. He only reported to the accused. He was aware the accused had a partner named Krishna. Baskar stayed in the Club. He said the accused, the dancers and one Raj also stayed in the Club. TA was already working as a dancer together with four others when he came to the Club. CV and KR started work subsequently. He stated the accused generally did the marketing. Sometimes, he (Baskar) was asked to buy vegetables. The accused would do the cooking for the employees.
After the daily dance show ended at 3am, the accused would tally the amount received from the sale of liquor and the tips given by the customers to the dancers. This process would take about half an hour or so. He said the dancers and himself would be standing during this period near to the accused. He said the accused was abusive towards him when he suspected he had pocketed money although he (accused) had miscounted the money. He said the accused would talk to the dancers about their dancing, the amount of tips earned and their daily targets when he was checking the accounts. The accused would scold and abuse the dancers with vulgarities when the tips were low.
Baskar said that everyone would eat after the show at around 3.30am. He would go to sleep between 4.00am to 5.00am and get up at 5pm. He said if the dancers were hungry, they would inform the accused and the accused would in turn wake him up to buy food. He said this happened about four times in a week.
Asked how many entrances and exits there were to the Club, he said that there was only one entrance cum exit. He said the rear door was always secured with a padlock. He would only open it to bring the rubbish out. Asked if the street door and Club door would be open when the club is closed, he said both doors will be locked. However, the doors could be opened from within by twisting the door knob. He said he had seen the accused using the padlock to lock the Club door from the outside only when there was no one else in the Club and all of them were going out for a meal.
Asked if the dancers could leave the club on their own, he answered that they could go out and there were no restrictions. However, it was also his evidence that he had not seen the dancers going out on their own.
He stated that the mobile phones of the dancers which they brought from India were kept in a locked drawer at the bar counter. He said they were given another mobile phone with a local SIM card.
He confirmed that there were CCTV cameras in the Club which were recording 24/7. He said the accused used the CCTVs to monitor the activities in the Club and the staff, which included the dancers, himself and Raj.
The learned DPP was given leave to cross-examine Baskar on his prior statement (P23) which he made on 16 June 2016 between 9 to 11pm at the premises of the Ministry of Manpower (‘MOM’). The statement was recorded by MOM officer Teng Yi Liang Derrick (‘Derrick’) with the assistance of a Tamil interpreter, K Kalidas (‘Kalidas’). He was referred to [7] in which it was recorded that the accused had instructed him on numerous occasions that the dancers are not allowed to go out of the accommodation; that the accused did not want to risk the dancers to get pregnant by allowing them to go out with the customers; and that he (Baskar) was given the responsibility to ensure that the doors were always locked when the accused and himself were not in the Club. Baskar claimed he was misunderstood and denied that he said the dancers were not allowed to go out. He said the doors could be opened from the inside by twisting the knob. He stated that he said the accused told him that he should lock up when he (Baskar) went out. He said he did not know whether the accused allowed the dancers to go out. However, he agreed that he told the recorder that the accused told him that he does not want to risk the dancers to get pregnant by allowing them to go out with customers of the club. He said he only came to know of this reason when the accused told the police in June 2016 when the police came to the club.
With respect to the last sentence in [7] that the dancers were not able to leave the premises, he claimed the...
To continue reading
Request your trial