Yeo Eng Siang v Public Prosecutor

• Jurisdiction: Singapore
• Judge: Yong Pung How CJ
• Judgment Date: 08 March 2005
• Neutral Citation: [2005] SGHC 47
• Docket Number: Magistrate's Appeal No 169 of 2004
• Date: 08 March 2005
• Year: 2005
• Published date: 09 March 2005
• Plaintiff Counsel: Appellant in person
• Citation: [2005] SGHC 47
• Defendant Counsel: Low Cheong Yeow (Deputy Public Prosecutor)
• Court: High Court (Singapore)
• Subject Matter: Proof of evidence,Overstayer,Harbouring,Appeal,Evidence,Standard of proof,Criminal Procedure and Sentencing,Immigration,Whether sufficient evidence adduced to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused harbouring overstayer,Accused appealing against decision of trial judge to accept testimony of prosecution witness over accused's own testimony,Section 57(1)(d) Immigration Act (Cap 133, 1997 Rev Ed),Whether appellate court should interfere with trial judge's findings of fact,Reliance on sole prosecution witness's testimony,Whether Prosecution's case proven beyond reasonable doubt

8 March 2005

Yong Pung How CJ:

1 This was an appeal against the decision of a district judge, wherein the appellant was convicted under s 57(1)(d) of the Immigration Act (Cap 133, 1997 Rev Ed) (“the Act”), and sentenced to seven months’ imprisonment for harbouring an overstayer who had acted in contravention of s 15(3)(b) of the Act. The appeal was against both conviction and sentence. After considering the evidence in the record, the district judge’s Grounds of Decision and the Prosecution’s case against the appellant, I decided to allow the appeal against conviction and sentence. I now give my reasons.

The facts

The charge

2 The appellant was charged under s 57(1)(d) of the Act for harbouring an overstayer, Chen Shixian (“Chen”), between 26 and 27 February 2004 at the appellant’s flat. It was undisputed that Chen, a Chinese national, had acted in contravention of s 15(3)(b) of the Act by overstaying in Singapore for a period exceeding 90 days after the expiration of his social visit pass.

3 The main issues in contention were: (a) whether the appellant had harboured Chen between 26 and 27 February 2004, and (b) if so, whether the appellant had reasonable grounds for believing Chen to be an overstayer. According to s 57(7) of the Act, once it is proved that the appellant had harboured Chen, it shall be presumed, until the contrary is proved, that the appellant knew that Chen was an overstayer.

The Prosecution’s case

4 The Prosecution essentially based its case on Chen’s testimony. Chen testified that he had met the appellant for the first time on 26 February 2004, while he was working as a rag-and-bone man. As Chen passed by the appellant’s flat, the appellant offered to sell him a television set. Chen wanted to leave after he realised that he was unable to buy the television set from the appellant as the gate to the flat was locked with chains. However, the appellant called him back to ask for his help to deliver some documents to a lawyer. The appellant then handed Chen three documents in English. Chen was initially reluctant to help the appellant. He told the appellant that his passport had expired and he was concerned that he might be arrested at the lawyer’s office. However, after the appellant assured him that there would be no police officers at the lawyer’s office, Chen decided to help the appellant as he felt sorry for the appellant.

5 Chen asked the appellant for money for the taxi ride to the lawyer’s office, but the appellant said that he had no money. Chen decided to use his own money to take a taxi to the lawyer’s office. This taxi ride cost him $12. When Chen reached the lawyer’s office, he was unable to find the lawyer. He therefore left the documents with a lady in the office. Chen then called the appellant to inform him of this. In response, the appellant told Chen to wait for the lawyer. After waiting for a while, the lawyer had yet to appear, so Chen called the appellant again. The appellant instructed him to leave the documents with the lady and to bring some newspapers back to him.

6 After completing the errand for the appellant, Chen again used his own money ($12) to take a taxi to return to the appellant’s flat, where the appellant thanked him for his help. Chen testified that he entered the flat because the appellant had told him to do so. Although the gate was locked with chains, the chains were rather loose, so that he was able to squeeze into the flat through a gap created by pushing the gate.

7 After Chen entered the flat, he saw that the flat was very messy and decided to help the appellant tidy the flat. The appellant asked Chen whether he knew of a lady who could help him to tidy the place. Chen said that there was a friend who would be able to help but that the appellant must be willing to pay for this. Chen testified that the appellant offered him $100 for the job. Since Chen could not finish tidying the flat by himself, he decided to ask his friend, a Chinese lady known as “Little Sister” (“LS”) for help and he would split the money equally with her.

8 Subsequently, Chen brought LS to the appellant’s flat. LS entered the flat in the same way Chen did, by squeezing through the gap created by pushing the gate. After Chen and LS had completed the work, they asked the appellant for payment. The appellant told them that he had no money to pay them. Instead, he suggested that they stay the night at his flat.

9 Chen next went out to buy dinner for LS, the appellant and himself. During dinner, the appellant offered to rent a room to them at $80 per person per month. Chen agreed to take up the offer as the rent offered by the appellant was lower than what he was paying for his place at Choa Chu Kang. Chen felt that he could take advantage of the low rent and simply forget about the $100 owed to him by the appellant. Chen also testified that he had told the appellant at least twice that his passport had expired. This was because Chen believed that, if he did not inform the appellant at the outset of his immigration status, the appellant might call the police to have him arrested should the appellant later discover that he was an overstayer. Having assisted the appellant, Chen felt that he could trust the appellant not to inform the police.

10 Chen and LS later spent the night in the living room. On the following day, 27 February 2004, the appellant passed them two pieces of paper and sent them on an errand to withdraw money from a bank. Chen was initially reluctant to go to the bank as he felt that, due to his immigration status, he might be arrested. However, the appellant assured Chen otherwise, saying that he would speak to the manager of the bank.

11 When Chen and LS reached the bank, one of the counter staff informed them that the two pieces of paper were for opening an account. Puzzled, they left the bank and Chen called the appellant to seek clarification. The appellant’s response was that he would inform the manager accordingly and they should return to the bank. Back at the bank, the manager told Chen and LS to take a seat in the waiting area. Later on, LS managed to slip away. As for Chen, the police subsequently arrived and arrested him.

12 The other witness for the Prosecution was Aw Ann Beng (“Aw”), the operational manager of the bank. Aw gave evidence that the appellant spoke to him on the phone on 27 February 2004. The appellant complained that a Chinese couple had stolen a pre-signed withdrawal voucher from him. When Aw informed the appellant that the Chinese couple was at the branch, the appellant told Aw to call the police as the couple were illegal immigrants and if Aw did not detain them, Aw would be committing a crime.

13 Staff Sergeant Gan Ong Peng (“SSgt Gan”), the investigating officer, also testified for the Prosecution. He gave evidence that during his first visit to the appellant’s flat on 12 March 2004, he saw three chains with padlocks on the gate. He further observed that the chains on the gate could be extended, such that a person could squeeze through the gap created. SSgt Gan also testified that the appellant claimed that he did not have the keys to the locks and was locked in with his (the appellant’s) consent.

The defence

14 The appellant’s defence was that Chen and LS had never entered the flat either on 26 or 27 February 2004. The appellant said that it was impossible for them to enter the flat as the gate to the flat was tightly secured with chains and he did not have the keys to unlock the chains. The appellant testified that he did not see Chen and LS on 26 February 2004, but only on 27 February 2004 when they pestered him for a loan. Eventually, Chen threatened the appellant into signing a document authorising them to withdraw money from the appellant’s account. Chen also stole two banking documents from the appellant. The appellant related these events to a church counsellor known as Mr Yeo, who then made the phone call to the police. It was suggested that Chen was probably angry with the appellant for causing him to be arrested and, in revenge, conjured up the allegation that the appellant had harboured him.

15 The younger sister of the appellant, Yeo Siang Kiang Irene (“Irene”) and the appellant’s ex-wife, Lim Meng Hong (“Suzie”) also gave evidence for the Defence. They testified that they did not think that anyone could squeeze through any gap at the gate as it was tightly secured with chains and the appellant did not have the keys to unlock the chains.

The decision below

16 The district judge observed that this was essentially a case of one man’s word against another. She went on to examine the testimony of Chen and the appellant. In assessing Chen’s evidence, the district judge was mindful that Chen might well have had an axe to grind against the appellant, and so she scrutinised Chen’s evidence with great care and circumspection. Nevertheless, having had the opportunity to observe Chen closely on the witness stand, the district judge found Chen’s testimony to be generally consistent. At [55] of her Grounds of Decision ([2005] SGDC 1), the district judge held:

I also observed that Chen answered questions without hesitation and gave his testimony in a forthright manner. I assessed him to be a witness of truth. Though there were certain parts of his testimony that may appear, at first glance, to be inconsistent, I found these inconsistencies (if at all) minor and immaterial. They did not undermine his evidence in respect of the key issues relating to the charge.

17 On the other hand, the district judge found the appellant’s evidence to be riddled with inconsistencies, replete with afterthoughts and peppered with outright lies. In short, the district judge rejected the appellant’s evidence in its entirety and accepted Chen’s version of events.

18 The district judge was satisfied that Chen met the appellant at his flat on 26 February 2004 and assisted the appellant to deliver some documents to a lawyer. She also accepted...