Public Prosecutor v Annamalai Pillai Jayanthi

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 22 January 1998
• Neutral Citation: [1998] SGHC 23
• Date: 22 January 1998
• Subject Matter: Whether mere presence of inconsistencies render prosecution case manifestly unreliable,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Inconsistencies in witnesses' evidence,Incumbent upon trial judge to consider whether inconsistencies sufficiently fundamental to nullify part of evidence supporting charge,Failure of district judge to exercise discretion to amend charge -High Court's power to amend charge while exercising powers under s 256(a) of Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68),Charge,Trials,Amendment by High Court on appeal,Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) s 256(a) -s 5(1)Employment of Foreign Workers Act (Cap 91A),Close of prosecution's case,Prosecution's failure to apply for amendment of charge prior to close of its case,Whether discrepancies relate only to credibility of witnesses' evidence relevant only at end of entire case
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 165 of 1997
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Defendant Counsel: Palaniappan Sundararaj (Derrick, Ravi & Partners)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Plaintiff Counsel: Hay Hung Chun (Deputy Public Prosecutor)

Judgment:

YONG PUNG HOW CJ

In the court below, at the close of the prosecution`s case, the district judge acquitted the accused of the following charge:

You, Annamalai Pillai Jayanthi, female 34 years, passport no B132687, date of birth 12 April 1962, an Indian national, are charged that you, from 7 May 1996 till 23 January 1997, at No 27 Realty Park, No 98B East Coast Road and No 9 Jalan Selandang Delima, Singapore, did abet, by intentionally aiding one Janice Marissa Hogan to employ one Rengappa Santhi, female 28 years, an Indian national, as a domestic maid, being a person who acted in contravention of s 6(1) of the Immigration Act (Cap 133, 1995 Ed) and you have thereby abetted the commission of an offence under s 57(1)(e) of the Immigration Act, which offence is punishable under s 57(1)(ii) of the Immigration Act read with s 109 of the Penal Code (Cap 224).

The prosecution appealed against the order of the district judge. I allowed the appeal and remitted the case to the district court for the defence to be called on an amended charge. I now give my reasons for doing so.

2. The prosecution case

One Rengappa Santhi (Santhi) arrived in Singapore on 15 March 1993 in order to work in Johore Bahru for a period of two years. Her travel arrangements had been made by the accused, who had promised her a job in Malaysia. The accused was herself a domestic maid in the home of one R Santhi (RS). At the time of Santhi`s arrival, she possessed a valid passport and social visit pass. She was taken by car to Johore Bahru, where she worked for one Janicki Nadason (Janicki) for a period of two years. The acts complained of in the charge arose upon the completion of her two year contract. She was taken by car to Singapore, and thereafter worked for one Janice Marissa Hogan (Janice). It was the prosecution`s case that her entry into Singapore from Johore Bahru was without a valid entry permit in contravention of s 6(1) of the Immigration Act (Cap 133, 1995 Ed); that she was employed by Janice despite her contravention of the Immigration Act; and that the accused had been the person responsible for Janice`s employment of Santhi.

3.The prosecution case centred on the evidence of Santhi. Santhi testified that upon her arrival in Singapore in 1993, she handed her passport to the accused, who kept it. She did not see her passport again. When she was taken by Janicki and another person by car to Johore Bahru, however, the car passed through the Singapore and Malaysia checkpoints, and she saw three passports handed over. Whilst in Malaysia, whenever she asked for her passport, Janicki merely said that she did not need one as she possessed the requisite work permit. On two occasions when she spoke with the accused on the telephone while she was still in Malaysia, the accused explained that she had sent Santhi`s passport for renewal. Upon the completion of her two years in Johore Bahru, she was taken by Janicki and another in his car to Singapore. Again, they passed through the Singapore and Malaysia checkpoints, but she was unable to say whether any passports or other travel documents were handed over at this point.

4.Upon arrival in Singapore, she stayed briefly in the house of the accused`s employer, R Santhi (`RS`). The accused told her that her passport was lost and that a replacement would cost $2,500. When she revealed that she did not have such a large sum of money, the accused suggested that she earn the money. She was thereafter introduced to Janice, for whom she worked from 7 May 1996 until sometime in January 1998. Throughout this period, she was assured by Janice that the requisite work permit would be obtained for her. She was also informed by the accused on the telephone that her passport had been renewed.

5.The investigating officer, Yeo Seng Guan, was called. Unfortunately, he was unable to shed much light on the circumstances of her entry into Singapore. He had contacted the Data Processing Centre, but they had been unable to help, as Santhi was unable to supply her passport number or even the exact date of her re-entry into Singapore. Thevavani, the immigration officer who dealt with Santhi, was also unable to check her immigration status, as Santhi could not supply either her passport number or the name used in her passport.

6.The accused`s employer, RS, testified that when Santhi stayed briefly at her house upon her return from Malaysia in 1996, she saw Santhi put a passport into a drawer. Santhi also told her that she was on a social visit pass. She testified that some days after Santhi`s arrival, Santhi furnished her with a pager number and asked her to telephone Janice so that arrangements could be made for Santhi to work for Janice. She herself conversed briefly with Janice, who said that she would arrange for Santhi`s work permit. Santhi, too, spoke with Janice. She left RS`s house soon after to work for Janice.

7.Janice was called as a prosecution witness. She testified that sometime in April 1996, she was in desperate need of a maid. Her mother told her to contact the accused. When she did so, she was told that there was a maid available for baby-sitting and that there would be a $500 agency fee for the introduction. This was later paid for by her mother. She went thereafter to fetch Santhi, who worked for her until the end of December 1996. She testified that the accused said she would make arrangements for a work permit but she was not given any documents. She terminated Santhi`s services in December as she `did not want to keep someone I don`t know anything about`. She contacted the accused and returned Santhi to her. In the week before the trial in the court below, Janice pleaded guilty to a charge under s 5(1) of the Employment of Foreign Workers Act (Cap 91A, 1991 Ed), of having employed Santhi without obtaining for her a valid work permit, and had been fined.

8.Janice`s mother, Goorusamy Mynavathy, confirmed that she had given the accused`s telephone number to Janice and Janice had engaged Santhi through the accused. She testified that subsequently, she went with Janice to RS`s house to pay the accused the $500 brokerage fee which the accused had demanded prior to introducing Santhi.

9. The district judge`s decision

The district judge pointed out that Janice`s employment of Santhi was not in issue, and concentrated on the two remaining elements of the charge, first, whether Santhi was in...