Mohd Hazwan v PP: Immigration Act - Engaging in Business of Conveying Prohibited Immigrant
Mohd Hazwan bin Mohd Muji appealed to the High Court of Singapore against his conviction under s 57(1)(c) of the Immigration Act for engaging in the business of conveying a prohibited immigrant. The High Court, presided over by Quentin Loh J, allowed the appeal in part, amending the charge to a less serious offence under s 57(1)(b) of the Act for abetting the prohibited immigrant to leave Singapore. The court found that Mohd Hazwan's level of involvement did not meet the threshold for 'engaging in the business' of conveying prohibited immigrants.
1. Case Overview
1.1 Court
High Court1.2 Outcome
Appeal Allowed in Part
1.3 Case Type
Criminal
1.4 Judgment Type
Grounds of Decision
1.5 Jurisdiction
Singapore
1.6 Description
Mohd Hazwan appeals conviction under s 57(1)(c) of Immigration Act. High Court amends charge to s 57(1)(b), finding insufficient involvement in business.
1.7 Decision Date
2. Parties and Outcomes
| Party Name | Role | Type | Outcome | Outcome Type | Counsels |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Public Prosecutor | Respondent | Government Agency | Appeal Allowed in Part | Partial | Samuel Chua of Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| Mohd Hazwan bin Mohd Muji | Appellant | Individual | Conviction under s 57(1)(c) of the Immigration Act amended to s 57(1)(b) | Partial |
3. Judges
| Judge Name | Title | Delivered Judgment |
|---|---|---|
| Quentin Loh | Judge | Yes |
4. Counsels
| Counsel Name | Organization |
|---|---|
| Samuel Chua | Attorney-General’s Chambers |
| S K Kumar | S K Kumar Law Practice LLP |
4. Facts
- The appellant was arrested at Woodlands Checkpoint while driving a car with a Bangladeshi national hidden in the rear passenger seat.
- The appellant was promised S$1,000 by his brother-in-law to convey the Bangladeshi national out of Singapore.
- The appellant knew the Bangladeshi national was unlawfully remaining in Singapore.
- The appellant followed instructions from his brother-in-law on how to conceal the Bangladeshi national in the car.
- The appellant did not negotiate directly with the Bangladeshi national.
- The appellant's brother-in-law had previously been arrested for human smuggling.
5. Formal Citations
- Mohd Hazwan bin Mohd Muji v Public Prosecutor, Magistrate's Appeal No 118 of 2012, [2012] SGHC 203
6. Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Appellant arrested at Woodlands Checkpoint | |
| First statement recorded from appellant | |
| Second statement recorded from appellant | |
| Hearing held | |
| Hearing held; alternative charge framed under s 390(4) of the CPC | |
| Judgment issued |
7. Legal Issues
- Engaging in the business of conveying prohibited immigrants
- Outcome: The court held that the appellant's actions did not constitute 'engaging in the business' under s 57(1)(c) and amended the charge to s 57(1)(b).
- Category: Substantive
- Sub-Issues:
- Level of involvement required to constitute 'engaging' in the business
- Distinction between mere conveyance and engaging in the business of conveyance
- Related Cases:
- [1997] 1 SLR (R) 291
- [2009] 4 SLR(R) 107
- [2011] SGDC 164
- Abetment of a prohibited immigrant leaving Singapore
- Outcome: The court found the appellant guilty of abetting a prohibited immigrant to leave Singapore under s 57(1)(b) of the Immigration Act.
- Category: Substantive
8. Remedies Sought
- Appeal against conviction and sentence
9. Cause of Actions
- Violation of Immigration Act
10. Practice Areas
- Criminal Appeals
11. Industries
- No industries specified
12. Cited Cases
| Case Name | Court | Affirmed | Citation | Jurisdiction | Significance |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Shekhar a/l Subramaniam v PP | High Court | Yes | [1997] 1 SLR (R) 291 | Singapore | Cited to establish that the word 'business' in s 57(1)(c) of the Immigration Act does not require system and continuity. |
| Public Prosecutor v Ng Yong Leng | High Court | Yes | [2009] 4 SLR(R) 107 | Singapore | Cited to support the interpretation that engaging in the business of conveying prohibited immigrants involves a degree of involvement higher than the mere act of conveying. |
| Public Prosecutor v Gabriel Kong Kum Loong | District Court | Yes | [2011] SGDC 164 | Singapore | Cited to show that the role of the accused, which did not include any form of planning or making of arrangements with the prohibited immigrant, is insufficient to ground a charge of engaging in the business of conveying an illegal immigrant out of Singapore. |
| Public Prosecutor v Md Mahbubul Hoque Md Sirajul Hoque | District Court | Yes | [2009] SGDC 317 | Singapore | Cited to differentiate the facts where the appellant never exploited or abused any ability or position he had in committing the offence. |
13. Applicable Rules
| Rule Name |
|---|
| No applicable rules |
14. Applicable Statutes
| Statute Name | Jurisdiction |
|---|---|
| Immigration Act (Cap 133) s 57(1)(c) | Singapore |
| Immigration Act (Cap 133) s 57(1)(iii) | Singapore |
| Immigration Act (Cap 133) s 57(1)(b) | Singapore |
| Immigration Act (Cap 133) s 57(1)(ii) | Singapore |
| Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68, 2012 Rev Ed) s 390(4) | Singapore |
| Immigration Act s 57(6) | Singapore |
15. Key Terms and Keywords
15.1 Key Terms
- Prohibited immigrant
- Engaging in the business
- Abetment
- Conveyance
- Woodlands Checkpoint
- Immigration Act
15.2 Keywords
- Immigration Act
- Prohibited Immigrant
- Conveying
- Abetment
- Singapore
- Criminal Law
17. Areas of Law
| Area Name | Relevance Score |
|---|---|
| Immigration | 95 |
| Criminal Law | 75 |
16. Subjects
- Immigration Offences
- Criminal Law