Public Prosecutor v Hao Chunming

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Imran bin Abdul Hamid
• Judgment Date: 21 February 2017
• Neutral Citation: [2017] SGDC 47
• Court: District Court (Singapore)
• Docket Number: DAC-041180-2013 & Ors
• Year: 2017
• Published date: 03 March 2017
• Hearing Date: 29 June 2015,07 November 2016,01 August 2016,30 March 2016,11 November 2016,31 March 2016,05 May 2016,06 April 2016,12 October 2016,01 July 2015,10 September 2015,31 August 2015,04 August 2016,23 March 2015,23 November 2015
• Plaintiff Counsel: Immigration & Checkpoint Authority (ICA) ASP Lim Yur Ting
• Defendant Counsel: Mr Chung Ping Shen, Defence Counsel
• Citation: [2017] SGDC 47

District Judge Imran bin Abdul Hamid: INTRODUCTION Charges

The accused is Hao Chunming, born on 14th Feb 80. She claimed trial to 3 charges under s57(1)(k) p/u under s57(1)(vi), Immigration Act¹. On 11th Oct 12 at the Visitor’s Services Centre (VSC) of ICA, she obtained a Visit Pass (VP) for herself, by making a false statement in the Application for a VP (Long Term) form (Form 14)² and declared that the statements made in the application form were true and correct, when the form contained fact which she knew to be false, namely that, her address in Singapore was ‘Blk 7, St. George’s Lane, #07-235, S320007’ (St George’s address): DAC 41180/13 (1stCharge). On 30th Mar 12 at the Permanent Resident Services (PRSC) of ICA, she attempted to obtain an Entry Permit granting her Permanent Residence (PR), by making false statement in the form for Application for PR in Singapore (Form 4)³ and declared that the statements made in the application form were true and correct and that she have not wilfully suppressed any material fact, when the form contained fact which she knew to be false, namely that, her address in Singapore was the St George’s address: DAC 41181/13 (2ndCharge); On 7th Nov 12 at the PRSC of ICA, attempted to obtain an Entry Permit granting her PR, by making false statement in the Application for PR in Singapore (Form 4)⁴ and declared that the statements made in the application form were true and correct and that she have not wilfully suppressed any material fact, when the form contained fact which she knew to be false namely that, her address in Singapore was the St George’s address: DAC 41182/13 (3rdCharge).

The prescribed punishment states that the offender “shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $4,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months or to both.”

Status of Co-Accused

The accused, being a China National, needed a local sponsor to stay in Singapore. Her sponsor was Yap Yi San (YYS), a Singaporean, who entered into a marriage with her in China. He was charged with 3 mirror charges. He pleaded guilty to 1 and consented for the remaining 2 charges to be TIC⁵.

Case Overview

In brief, the Prosecution’s case was that pursuant to a monetary offer he received to marry a PRC woman so that she can come to Singapore, YYS boarded a flight and met the accused in China. That was the first time they met. Very soon after that, they got married. Shortly thereafter, YYS returned to Singapore with the accused. Upon arrival, they parted ways. Subsequently, as was the understanding, YYS met the accused at ICA to apply for visit pass/PR (‘immigration facilities’) for her. He did not prepare the forms but he signed them as sponsor. The accused never stayed at the St George’s address. The gist of YYS’s evidence was that the marriage to the accused was a ruse so that they can obtain immigration facilities for her, legitimizing, on a long-term basis, her stay here. YYS knew the information relating to her address, was false.

The Defence’s case is that the accused’s marriage to YYS was not a ruse to obtain immigration facilities. YYS made promises to the accused before they were married but broke them upon arriving in Singapore. The accused did not stay at the St George’s address because his mother disapproved of the marriage. After YYS abandoned her, she survived in Singapore⁶ with the assistance of friends and relatives. The forms were prepared by YYS and form-fillers. She signed the forms, unaware of the contents. She does not read English⁷.

The Defence explored many issues, for example, the perceived ambiguity in the forms eliciting information on address in Singapore⁸. It was said that the accused being a foreigner “would certainly have thought that it would have been a legitimate answer to provide in the standard form (intended address)”⁹. It was also argued that it was her intention to provide “a permanent address in which communications and correspondence from ICA could safely be sent to (contact address)”. Implicit in this, is the concession that the accused read (or at least been explained the contents of the form) but misunderstood what was needed.

It was also argued that she was not told that she is duty bound to verify the accuracy of information and consequences that may follow if she did not¹⁰. However, Form 4, for example, contained a text box warning applicants of this.

Despite all these, the accused’s actual defence¹¹ when she testified was that she had not asked for the forms to be read or explained to her in Chinese, either by YYS or ICA officer, to confirm the information provided, before she signed/submitted them. She did not know the contents.

The accused challenged the voluntariness of her statements¹² on the basis, essentially, that the ICA officers involved in the recording of her statements and the interpreter, conspired to coerce her to admit to the offences. After the ancillary hearing, the statements were ruled to be admissible¹³.

Case Outcome

At the end of the trial, I preferred the evidence of the prosecution witnesses over the accused. I found that the Prosecution had proven the 3 charges beyond a reasonable doubt and convicted her. She was sentenced to an aggregate of 8 weeks’ imprisonment¹⁴. She appealed. A stay was granted.

THE LAW Statutory Provision

S57(1)(k) is part of a list of offences under s57(1) of the Immigration Act.

“Section 57 (1): Any person who — (a) attempts unlawfully to enter Singapore in contravention of any provision of this Act, other than section 6(1), or the regulations; (aa) abets¹⁵ any person to enter Singapore in contravention of the provisions of this Act or the regulations (b) abets any person to leave Singapore¹⁶ in contravention of the provisions of this Act or the regulations; (c) engages in the business or trade of conveying to or out of Singapore in or on any vehicle, vessel, aircraft or train any person whom he knows or has reasonable grounds for believing is a prohibited immigrant; (d) harbours a person - (i) whom the defendant knows has acted in contravention of the provisions of this Act or the regulations; (ii) with reckless disregard as to whether he has acted in contravention of the provisions of this Act or the regulations; or (iii) negligently failing to ascertain as to whether he has acted in contravention of the provisions of this Act or the regulations; (e) employs any person who has acted in contravention of section 6(1), 15 or 36 or the regulations; (f) makes or causes to be made any false report, false statement or false representation in connection with any obligation imposed by the provisions of this Act or the regulations; (g) resists or obstructs, actively or passively, any immigration officer in the execution of his duty; (h) without lawful excuse hinders or obstructs any removal under the provisions of this Act; (i) gives, sells or parts with possession of any entry or re-entry permit, pass, Singapore visa or certificate in order that it may be used in contravention of paragraph (j); (j) uses any entry or re-entry permit, pass, Singapore visa or certificate issued to any other person as if it had been lawfully issued to himself; (k) by making a false statement obtains or attempts to obtain an entry or a re-entry permit, pass, Singapore visa or certificate for himself or for any other person; or (l) uses or without lawful authority has in his possession any forged, unlawfully altered or irregular entry or re-entry permit, pass, Singapore visa or certificate or other document issued under this Act or the regulations, or any permit, pass…other document so issued on which any endorsement has been forged or unlawfully altered.

In their final submissions, the prosecution referred to Mohd Aslam s/o Jahandad v. PP (“Mohd Aslam”)¹⁷. The appellant was convicted on 2 charges under s57(1)(k) read with s109, Penal Code, for abetting the company (a) to make a false statement to the MOM so as to obtain an employment pass for PW1, an Indian national (“the first offence”); and (b) to obtain a renewal of PW1’s employment pass (“the second offence”). The false statement was that the company was to employ PW1 as a business manager at a salary of $3,000, which was untrue.

Inter alia, one of the grounds of appeal was that Prosecution did not prove that when the appellant submitted the forms, he knew that they contained false details. In addressing this, the Court said:

“…the mental element for the offence of abetting a crime by intentional aiding is knowledge on the accused’s part of the circumstances constituting the crime when he voluntarily renders an act of positive assistance: Awtar Singh; Loh Kim Lan v PP (both abetment cases). For the s57(1)(k) offence, the relevant circumstances would be the making of a false statement so as to obtain or attempt to obtain an employment pass. The Prosecution thus had to prove that at the time the appellant completed and submitted the application form and the renewal form in June 2003 and July 2004 respectively, he knew that the documents contained false details of PW1’s job title and salary. In this respect, counsel submitted that the trial judge erred in law in holding that the appellant “ought to know” of the false particulars at the material time. I found no merit in this argument as knowledge is not confined to actual knowledge alone, but extends to “wilful blindness” as well….”

I felt that mens rea is also an ingredient of the offence under s57(1)(k) simpliciter although the section does not state the type of mens rea required in “making a false statement. The prosecution conducted its case on the basis that knowledge was the mens rea. I took the same view based on precedents.

Case-Law

In PP v Zha Yuemei¹⁸, the accused claimed trial to a charge of making a false statement in her application for a Visit Pass. The false statement was about her address in Singapore. In...