Soh Lip Hwa v Public Prosecutor: Employing Immigration Offender & Adducing Additional Evidence
In Soh Lip Hwa v Public Prosecutor, the High Court of Singapore heard an appeal by Soh Lip Hwa against his conviction and sentence for employing an immigration offender, Zhou Xi Qiu, in violation of Section 57(1)(e) of the Immigration Act. The District Judge had sentenced Soh to one year's imprisonment. Yong Pung How CJ dismissed the appeal, finding sufficient evidence that Soh employed Zhou and had reasonable grounds to believe Zhou was an immigration offender. The court also denied Soh's motion to adduce additional evidence.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Motion denied; appeals dismissed.
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Soh Lip Hwa appeals conviction for employing an immigration offender. The High Court dismissed the appeal, finding sufficient evidence of employment and knowledge.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Soh Lip Hwa | Appellant | Individual | Appeal Dismissed | Lost | Tomas Ho Vei Liung |
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Sustained | Won | Ravneet Kaur |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Yong Pung How | Chief Justice | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Tomas Ho Vei Liung | Chee & Teo |
| Ravneet Kaur | Deputy Public Prosecutor |
4. Facts
- Soh was charged with employing Zhou, a China national, who entered Singapore without a valid pass.
- Soh was a supervisor at Tops and Hui Design & Renovation.
- Ting, the owner of Tops and Hui, testified that Soh had the authority to employ workers.
- Soh brought Zhou and Huang to Ting to ask if she wanted to employ them.
- Soh informed Zhou there was a job for him and directed him to the cleaning work.
- Soh paid Zhou $20 per day for his work.
- Soh provided Zhou with a handphone registered in Soh's name.
5. Formal Citations
- Soh Lip Hwa v Public Prosecutor, MA 137/2001, [2001] SGHC 252
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Soh employed Zhou Xi Qiu as a general worker. | |
| Sgt Koh Ah Seng discovered Huang Xin Hwa and Zhou Xi Qiu working at Block 749, Jurong West Street 73. | |
| Singapore Immigration & Registration sent a letter to Ting See Sa Moi regarding a social visit pass application for Lin Ming Qin. | |
| High Court dismissed Soh Lip Hwa's appeal against conviction and sentence. |
7. Legal Issues
- Admissibility of Additional Evidence
- Outcome: The court denied the motion to adduce additional evidence, finding that the second condition of the threefold test (relevance) was not satisfied.
- Category: Procedural
- Related Cases:
- [1993] 3 SLR 338
- [1954] 3 All ER 745
- [1999] 4 SLR 72
- [2000] 2 SLR 339
- [2000] 3 SLR 750
- Employment of Immigration Offender
- Outcome: The court found that Soh did employ Zhou and had the requisite mens rea, upholding the conviction.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [1999] 1 SLR 702
- [1996] 2 SLR 274
- [1996] 3 SLR 225
- [1997] 1 SLR 445
- [1998] 2 SLR 744
- Manifestly Excessive Sentence
- Outcome: The court affirmed the sentence of one year's imprisonment, finding it was not manifestly excessive.
- Category: Substantive
- Related Cases:
- [2001] 2 SLR 474
- [1993] 3 SLR 305
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction
- Appeal against sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of Section 57(1)(e) of the Immigration Act (Cap 133, 1997 Ed)
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
- Immigration Offenses
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Juma`at bin Samad v PP | High Court | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR 338 | Singapore | Cited for the threefold test to determine whether additional evidence is necessary. |
| Ladd v Marshall | N/A | Yes | [1954] 3 All ER 745 | N/A | Cited for the threefold test to determine whether additional evidence is necessary. |
| Chia Kah Boon v PP | High Court | Yes | [1999] 4 SLR 72 | Singapore | Cited for the threefold test to determine whether additional evidence is necessary. |
| Lee Yuen Hong v PP | High Court | Yes | [2000] 2 SLR 339 | Singapore | Cited for the threefold test to determine whether additional evidence is necessary. |
| Selvarajan James v PP | High Court | Yes | [2000] 3 SLR 750 | Singapore | Cited for the threefold test to determine whether additional evidence is necessary. |
| Lim Ah Poh v PP | High Court | Yes | [1992] 1 SLR 713 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court will not disturb findings of fact unless they are clearly against the weight of the evidence. |
| Sundara Moorthy Lankatharan v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [1997] 3 SLR 464 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court will not disturb findings of fact unless they are clearly against the weight of the evidence. |
| Abdul Ra`uf bin Abdul Rahman v PP | Court of Appeal | Yes | [2000] 1 SLR 683 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that an appellate court will not disturb findings of fact unless they are clearly against the weight of the evidence. |
| Tamilkodi s/o Pompayan v PP | High Court | Yes | [1999] 1 SLR 702 | Singapore | Cited regarding the amended definition of 'employ' in the Immigration Act. |
| PP v Heng Siak Kwang | High Court | No | [1996] 2 SLR 274 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the manner of remuneration and control over the workers would often be of great significance in deciding whether there was an employment relationship between the parties (before the 1996 amendment). |
| Ramli bin Daud v PP | High Court | Yes | [1996] 3 SLR 225 | Singapore | Cited as a case that considers the manner of remuneration and the degree of control of the workers in determining the existence of an employment relationship. |
| Lee Boon Leong Joseph v PP | High Court | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR 445 | Singapore | Cited as a case that considers the manner of remuneration and the degree of control of the workers in determining the existence of an employment relationship. |
| Assathamby s/o Karupiah v PP | High Court | Yes | [1998] 2 SLR 744 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the offence under s 57(1)(e) is not one of strict liability and the prosecution must establish mens rea. |
| Ang Jwee Herng v PP | High Court | Yes | [2001] 2 SLR 474 | Singapore | Cited for the benchmark sentence for employing illegal immigrant workers. |
| Lai Oei Mui Jenny v PP | High Court | Yes | [1993] 3 SLR 305 | Singapore | Cited for the principle that the impact of imprisonment on the offender's family members is generally not relevant in determining the appropriate sentence. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| s 257(1) Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) | Singapore |
| s 57(1)(e) Immigration Act (Cap 133, 1997 Ed) | Singapore |
| s 2 Immigration Act | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Immigration offender
- Employment
- Mens rea
- Reasonable diligence
- Threefold test
- Additional evidence
- Manifestly excessive
15.2 Keywords
- immigration
- employment
- offender
- appeal
- evidence
- sentence
16. Subjects
- Criminal Law
- Immigration Law
- Employment Law
- Evidence
17. Areas of Law
- Criminal Procedure
- Sentencing
- Immigration Law
- Employment Law