Public Prosecutor v Mayban Finance (Singapore) Ltd

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 16 October 1997
• Neutral Citation: [1997] SGHC 257
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 147 of 1997
• Date: 16 October 1997
• Published date: 19 September 2003
• Year: 1997
• Plaintiff Counsel: Jaswant Singh (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Citation: [1997] SGHC 257
• Defendant Counsel: Benjamin Sim (Shook Lin & Bok)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Harbouring,Whether vehicle has to be an 'essential' ingredient of offence,Vehicle is used to transport illegal worker to construction site,Whether vehicle is used in employment of illegal worker -s 49 Immigration Act (Cap 133, 1995 Ed),Illegal foreign worker,Immigration,Prosecution's application to forfeit vehicle under s 49 of the Immigration Act,Whether vehicle 'used in commission of offence'

Judgment:

YONG PUNG HOW CJ

This appeal was brought by the Public Prosecutor against the decision of the district judge in refusing to grant an application for forfeiture of a vehicle bearing registration no YG 6377 R (the lorry) under s 49 of the Immigration Act (Cap 133, 1995 Ed) (the Act). After listening to arguments by the DPP and counsel for the respondents, I allowed the appeal and ordered forfeiture of the lorry.

2. The background facts

The events that led to the application for the forfeiture of the vehicle were as set out below.

3.In the district court, one Tan Poh Siang (Tan) had claimed trial to eight charges under the Act. He was charged that he had committed an offence under s 57(1)(d) of the Act in that between September 1996 and 17 October 1996, at No 14, Lorong 6 Geylang, Singapore, he did harbour four Thai nationals, namely, Wandee Bunthong (Wandee), Wat, Suti Teh and Thongsuwan, all of whom had contravened s 6(1)(c) of the Act by entering Singapore without a valid pass. The other four charges against Tan were that he had committed an offence under s 57(1)(e) of the Act in that he had employed the same four Thai nationals who had contravened s 6(1)(c) of the Act. In respect of Wandee, Wat and Suti Teh, Tan was charged with employing them between 4 July 1996 and 17 October 1996 and in respect of Thongsuwan, the period of employment was between June 1996 and 17 October 1996.

4.In the court below, after admitting the statements and photographs of the police photographer Quek Kim Nguan, who gave a statement that in October 1996, he had taken three photographs of the construction site of Exclusiv Centre at Ubi Avenue and ten photographs of No 14, Lorong 6 Geylang, prosecution called police corporal Tan Kok Ann (PC Tan) to give evidence.

5.PC Tan had given a statement that on 17 October 1996, he and a party of police officers arrived at Lorong 6 Geylang. He noticed the lorry outside No 14. The engine of the vehicle was running and the driver was seated in the driver`s seat. PC Tan noticed a few male persons loading some objects on to the lorry, after which they boarded the lorry. The party of police officers went to the lorry and detained all the persons in it, including the lorry driver. There were a total of nine male Thai nationals seated in the lorry and the lorry driver was a male Singaporean. As the nine male Thai nationals could not produce any travel documents or identification papers, they were arrested for overstaying in Singapore. The lorry driver, whose name was Lee Teck Yin, was detained and referred to the Central Police Station, together with the Thai nationals.

6.The next prosecution witness was Wandee, one of the male Thai nationals. Wandee testified that he had been approached in Thailand by a male Thai named Ah Sorn who had asked him if he was interested in working in Singapore. An Sorn had offered to arrange for him to work in Singapore if he paid Ah Sorn 20,000 baht. Ah Sorn had also approached some other Thai nationals, including Wat and Suti Teh. Wandee agreed. He left his village on 25 June 1996 to travel to Singapore with 11 other male Thais, including Wat and Suti Teh.

7.He first took a train to Haadyai, South Thailand and, from there, he continued on a train through Malaysia to Singapore. Upon arrival at a place in Johore Bahru, Malaysia he was told to disembark from the train and to board a car. He, along with Wat and Suti Teh sat in the car and they were driven to an unknown place along the shore in Johore Bahru, where they boarded a boat to Singapore. After a very short boat journey, he arrived in Singapore. It was 26 June 1996. There were two cars waiting for their arrival, whereupon they were driven to an unknown lodging house.

8.At about 7 or 8am that same day, a male Chinese came and sent them to a construction site in Woodlands where they worked for three days. At that Woodlands construction site, Wandee said that he met a Thai worker, whom he told that he did not have a job. This Thai worker then brought all of them to No 14, Lorong 6 Geylang, which was a lodging house, for them to stay in and wait for a new employer. They stayed there for two days before one Ah Tan turned up. Wandee later identified Ah Tan as Tan.

9.Wandee, Wat and Suti Teh approached Tan and informed him that they were illegal workers and jobless. Tan had told them that he would find a cleaning job for them. He gave them each a photostat work permit with photographs on them which were not theirs. According to Wandee, Tan had said that if Wandee was arrested by a police officer, he was to produce the work permit and assume the name on the work permit. They were then brought to work at the Ubi Avenue construction site. Tan was the person who paid them their salaries.

10.Wandee said that he stayed at the Ubi construction site for two months before he was transferred back to No 14, Lorong 6 Geylang. He said that he went to the construction site from No 14, Lorong 6 Geylang sometimes in a green lorry and sometimes in a yellow lorry. He identified the yellow lorry as being the lorry registration no YG 6337 R. He worked at the Ubi Avenue construction site until he was arrested.

11.Wandee was cross-examined but in the midst of the cross-examination, counsel for Tan informed the court that a certain development had taken place. The prosecution had offered to proceed with two charges and the rest of the charges were to be taken into consideration for the purpose of the sentence. Tan decided to accept the offer.

12.Thereafter Tan pleaded guilty to two charges. One charge (DAC 24506/96) related to the offence under s 57(1)(d) of the Act for harbouring Wandee and the other charge (DAC 25005/96) related to the offence under s 57(1)(e) of the Act for employing the same person. Tan admitted to the following statement of facts presented by the prosecution:

On 17 October 1996 at about 7.15am, [PC Tan Kok Ann] together with a party of police officers led by DSP Zuraidah, Head Operations `A` Division, kept an observation at the premises at no 14 Lorong 6 Geylang. They spotted a motor lorry bearing registration no YG 6377 R Nissan Cabstar/yellow parked outside the unit no 14 Lorong 6 Geylang. Shortly, a group of male Thais were seen loading some construction equipment onto the lorry while the rest boarded the said lorry. The police moved in and arrested a total of nine male Thais (including a male Thai, Wandee Bunthong) on board the lorry as they failed to produce any valid document or identification papers.

Investigation revealed that between 4 July 1996 to 17 September 1996, [Tan Poh Siang] did employ a Thai, Wandee Bunthong as a construction worker. This male Thai had entered Singapore illegally on 26 June 1996, in contravention of the provisions of s 6(1)(c) of the Immigration Act (Cap 133, 1995 Ed). Tan deployed the male Thai to work at the Sumitomo construction site to build 4-storey warehouse located at Ubi Avenue 3. His working hours were from 7am to 6.30pm. Tan fixed his salary at $20 daily with $3 an hour for overtime. The salary was paid to the male Thai by Tan on the 5th and 20th of every month.

Tan housed the male Thai at unit No 14 Lorong 6 Geylang from the period around September 1996 to 17 October 1996. Tan provided shelter to the male Thai. The male Thai did not pay any rent nor was his salary deducted for his stay at unit No 14 Lorong 6 Geylang.

13.Tan admitted to the remaining six charges and consented to these charges being taken into consideration for the purpose of sentence. Tan was sentenced to a total of seven months` imprisonment, being seven months` imprisonment on each charge, the sentences for both charges to run concurrently.

14.As a result of the above, after sentence was imposed, the DPP applied for forfeiture of the lorry to the State under s 49 of the Act. Two parties, Waterfall Engineering Pte Ltd (Waterfall) and Mayban Finance Singapore Ltd (the respondents) opposed the application and claimed for the return of the lorry to them. Waterfall was the registered owner of the lorry and the lorry was purchased through a hire-purchase agreement with the respondents. Waterfall subsequently decided not to pursue the claim. At the end of the trial, the district judge refused the DPP`s application for forfeiture of the lorry.

15. Decision below

The district judge considered at length whether under s 49(5) of the Act, once it was proved to the satisfaction of the court that an offence under the Act...