Public Prosecutor v Koo Pui Fong

JurisdictionSingapore
JudgeYong Pung How CJ
Judgment Date04 April 1996
Neutral Citation[1996] SGHC 62
Docket NumberMagistrate's Appeal No 333/91/01
Date04 April 1996
Year1996
Published date19 September 2003
Plaintiff CounselLim Yew Jin (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
Citation[1996] SGHC 62
Defendant CounselLoh Lin Kok (Loh Lin Kok) and Mohan Singh (B Mohan Singh & Co)
CourtHigh Court (Singapore)
Subject Matters 57(8) Immigration Act (Cap 133),Whether presumption rebutted,Effect of statutory presumption,Immigration,Employment,Illegal immigrant,Distinction between wilful blindness and neglecting to make inquiries as a reasonable and prudent man should
The facts

On 17 January 1990, a party of immigration officers conducted a check at a construction site canteen off Hougang Ave 8 run by the respondent. The officersfound a Thai female, Sangiam Phuengsanthiah @ Namee Hathaichot (PW1), washing dishes. PW1 was subsequently charged for illegal entry under s 6(1) of the Immigration Act (Cap 133). She pleaded guilty to the offence and, by the time of the trial below, she had already finished serving her three months` imprisonment.

The respondent was a licensed canteen operator selling pre-cooked food at the Hougang construction site. Her business was a modest one, earning a net profit of about $80-$90 per day. There were Thai females at the worksite who sometimes bought food from the canteen but the respondent never asked them to help her in the business. On 1 October 1989, the respondent met PW1 for the first time outside the canteen when a woman, Plar, brought her along. On that occasion, no introduction was made although a Thai worker told the respondent that PW1 wanted to work for her. The respondent replied that she could not offer PW1 a job. After that meeting and until 17 January 1990, PW1 would turn up at the canteen occasionally. At times she would come on for a stretch of a few days and at other times, she would not appear at all for about ten days. When PW1 appeared at the canteen and saw that the respondent was busy, she would sometimes collect the dishes and wash them at the washing stand. The respondent would then give her leftover food or pay her a small sum of money. On the day of PW1`s arrest on 17 January 1990, she had volunteered to wash the dishes for the respondent.

The original charge

The respondent was originally charged with the following:
You, Koo Pui Fong @ Koo Mei Mei (F/6.1.42) SNRIC NO 0451459-I, are charged that you, between 1 October 1989 and 17 January 1990 at a canteen situated at the Housing and Development Board worksite at Hougang Ave 8, Singapore, did employ a Thai national, known as Namee Hathaichot (F/1948), as a canteen helper, being a person who had entered Singapore without a valid pass in contravention of the provisions of s 6(1)(c) of the Immigration Act (Cap 133), and you have thereby committed an offence under s 57(1)(e) of the Immigration Act (Cap 133), punishable under s 57(ii) of the said Act.



The relevant sections of the Immigration Act which pertain to this charge are as follows:

Section 6(1)(c) reads:

No person, other than a citizen of Singapore, shall enter Singapore unless he is in possession of a valid pass lawfully issued to him to enter Singapore.



Section 57(1), so far as relevant, states:

Any person who -

...

(e) employs any person who has acted in contravention of sections 6(1),15 or 36 or the regulations;

...

shall be guilty of an offence and -

...

(ii) subject to subsection (1A), in the case of an offence under paragraph (b), (d) or (e), shall be punished with imprisonment for a term of not less than 6 months and not more than 2 years and shall also be liable to a fine not exceeding $6000 ... .



Section 2 of the Act states:

`employ` means to engage or use the service of any person and to pay such person for services rendered or work done or to remunerate such person on a piece rate or on a commission basis ...;

`occupier`, in relation to any premises or place, includes -

(a) the person having the charge, management or control of either the whole or part of the premises or place, either on his own account or as an agent; and

(b) ...



Section 57(8) which provides for a knowledge presumption reads:

Where a person who has acted in contravention of section 6, 15 or 36 or the regulations is found at any premises or place, other than premises used solely for residential purposes, and is in possession of any tools or implements or engaged in any activity which may give rise to the inference that he is doing any work, the occupier of the premises or place shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, to have employed him knowing that he is a person who has acted in contravention of section 6, 15 or 36 or the regulations.



The decision below

At the trial below, the trial judge was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent had indeed employed PW1 during the period in question.
The only issue was whether the presumption under s 57(8) of the Immigration Act triggered against her was successfully rebutted on a balance of probabilities.

The trial judge, after considering all the evidence and submissions, was satisfied that, in view of the wholly unsatisfactory evidence of PW1 as well as the rest of the evidence, there was a real likelihood that the respondent had reasonable grounds to believe that PW1 was extending her stay in Singapore legally.
He accepted the respondent`s explanation that, as PW1 was only at the worksite intermittently, she had thought that the latter was making frequent trips every two weeks to Johore or Thailand so as to have her passport stamped for a further two-week stay. Hence she had no cause to suspect that PW1 was an illegal immigrant at the material time and the presumption was rebutted. Accordingly, he acquitted the respondent of the original charge. In its place, the trial judge preferred a different charge under s 8(1) of the Regulation of Employment Act (Cap 272) (now repealed) for employing a worker who had not been issued with a work permit. The respondent pleaded guilty to this charge, and was convicted and fined $2,500.

The appellant appealed against the acquittal on the original charge.


The present appeal

The only issue in this appeal was whether the respondent had indeed rebutted the s 57(8) presumption on a balance of probabilities.
The thrust of the appellant`s case was...

To continue reading

Request your trial
54 cases
  • Loo See Mei v PP
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 26 Febrero 2004
    ...2 SLR (R) 591; [1995] 2 SLR 767 (folld) PP v Azman bin Abdullah [1998] 2 SLR (R) 351; [1998] 2 SLR 704 (folld) PP v Koo Pui Fong [1996] 1 SLR (R) 734; [1996] 2 SLR 266 (folld) PP v Nurashikin bte Ahmad Borhan [2003] 1 SLR (R) 52; [2003] 1 SLR 52 (distd) Tan Ah Lay v PP [1994] SGCA 90 (folld......
  • Public Prosecutor v Ong Phee Hoon James
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 26 Junio 2000
    ... ... [Emphasis mine.] ... Accordingly, the judge should have asked himself if the evidence adduced by the appellant was sufficient to rebut the presumption of mens rea in s 57(7). The case of PP v Koo Pui Fong [1996] 2 SLR 266 (` Koo Pui Fong `) provides some guidance as to what constitutes the requisite mens rea in the context of s 57(1)(e) of the Immigration Act which deals with the offence of employing illegal immigrants. I am of the view that the observations in Koo Pui Fong are equally ... ...
  • Public Prosecutor v Mohammed Faizal Shah
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 27 Octubre 1997
    ...the offence is knowledge that the person employed is an immigration offender (see Guna Segar v PP [1996] 2 SLR 283 , PP v Koo Pui Fong [1996] 2 SLR 266 ). Under s 57(8), this knowledge is presumed unless the accused is able to prove on a balance of probabilities that he did not know that hi......
  • Nomura Taiji and Others v Public Prosecutor
    • Singapore
    • High Court (Singapore)
    • 19 Enero 1998
    ...reason to believe that P12 was forged?The test of knowledge has been comprehensively defined in a dearth of cases. In PP v Koo Pui Fong [1996] 2 SLR 266 , I stated at p 271A that it would be reasonable to say that a person `knows` a certain fact if he is aware that it exists or is almost ce......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
5 books & journal articles
  • CULPABILITY IN THE MISUSE OF DRUGS ACT
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2013, December 2013
    • 1 Diciembre 2013
    ...law. * The author would like to thank Michael Hor for his comments on an earlier version of this article. The usual caveats apply. 1 [1996] 1 SLR(R) 734 at [14]. 2 See, for example, Banking Act (Cap 19, 2008 Rev Ed) ss 7(2), 18(3)(b), 54A(9)(b); Corruption, Drug Trafficking and Other Seriou......
  • MANAGING MENS REA IN SINGAPORE
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2006, December 2006
    • 1 Diciembre 2006
    ...infra n 63. 54 [1995] 2 SLR 424 (“Hla Win”). 55 Id, at 435, [34]. 56 Id, at 436—437, [41]. 57 Id, at 438, [49]. 58 Id, at 438, [50]. 59 [1996] 2 SLR 266 at 271, [17]. 60 [2001] 3 SLR 534 at [22]. 61 Less self-contradictory are cases like Sim Teck Ho v PP[2000] 4 SLR 39 at [13], which descri......
  • Criminal Law
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Annual Review No. 2000, December 2000
    • 1 Diciembre 2000
    ...fact simply means that the individual must be personally aware that it exists or is almost certain that it exists (see PP v Koo Pui Fong[1996] 2 SLR 266). This submission is also supported by the following review of some of the provisions of the Penal Code. Where the offence may be committe......
  • ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION: PRINCIPLE AND PRAGMATISM IN THE CRIMINAL LAW
    • Singapore
    • Singapore Academy of Law Journal No. 2002, December 2002
    • 1 Diciembre 2002
    ...A thorough discussion should wait for further judicial development. 27 [1996] 2 SLR 283. 28 [1998] 2 SLR 744. 29 [1995] 3 SLR 252. 30 [1996] 2 SLR 266. 31 Ibid, at 272. 32 There is really no difference between due diligence and negligence: the defendant who has failed to exercise due dilige......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT