2. Managing Mens Rea in Singapore - Singapore Academy of Law

More documents

Recommendations

Info

18 SAcLJ 314 Managing Mens Rea in Singapore 339required for conviction. Second, negligence, where the accused is requiredto take reasonable steps to check. Third, wilful blindness, which, as wehave seen, ought to be equivalent to actual knowledge. Eventually theLegislature was to step in, but in a most curious manner. It obviously didnot want to say that Vadivelu was wrong, but neither did it legislate tomake it clear that negligence or due diligence, and not knowledge, was tobe the appropriate mens rea. 73 What it did do was to simply assume thatthe negligence standard was the law and proceeded to specify theminimum level of checking the employer or harbourer was expected toperform in the exercise of due diligence. 74 What is now in the statute arethe two offences of harbouring and employment, both still technicallyoffences of knowledge, with an edifice of due diligence or negligence builton it. 75 The confusion between knowledge and negligence is complete.50 The Legislature was once again to lay its clumsy hands on theimmigration offences, and on the harbouring offence in particular. Thereis no doubt, however, that the exercise was well-intentioned. TheMinisterial speech in Parliament is to be applauded for its recognition ofdifferent levels of blameworthiness: 76What is new in these amendments is that those found guilty ofnegligently harbouring an immigration offender will not face mandatoryimprisonment. This will, therefore, bridge the gap in the current Actwhere the prosecution either has to prosecute offenders for an offencethat carries a mandatory imprisonment sentence, or let them off with astern warning. Also, the courts will have some leeway not to have tosend an offender to jail, if found guilty. [emphasis added]73 Thus the presumption of knowledge in s 57(8) remains for the employment offence,and until the most recent amendment in 2004 (to be discussed in what immediatelyfollows), s 57(7) contained the presumption of knowledge for the harbouringoffence.74 There is enigmatic s 57(9) which reads:[I]t shall not be a defence for the defendant to prove that the person harbouredor employed by him was in possession of a pass or permit issued to the personunder this Act or the regulations unless the defendant further proves that hehad exercised due diligence to ascertain that the pass or permit was at thematerial time valid …Technically, this is nonsense – it has never been a good defence for the defendantmerely to prove that the person concerned “was in possession of a pass or permit”.The only defence was that the defendant did not know that the person concernedwas an immigration offender. The fact that the person concerned showed that he hadsomething like a pass or permit is relevant only because it is probative of thedefendant’s story that he did not realise he was dealing with immigration offenders.Possession of a pass or permit is certainly not the only possible piece of evidence.75 Section 57(10), Immigration Act.76 Singapore Parliamentary Debates, Official Report (16 November 2004), vol 78 atcol 1071.
340Singapore Academy of Law Journal (2006)51 What the Legislature actually did was this. 77 First it created asophisticated structure of three offences – knowingly harbouring,recklessly harbouring, and negligently harbouring. The originalpresumption of knowledge has now disappeared and in its place a newpresumption of recklessness and negligence (upon proof of the actusreus) stands. The peculiarities now begin. The presumption ofrecklessness can be rebutted only by proof that at least two of the threestipulated checks have been performed. The presumption of negligence isrebuttable only on proof that all three stipulated checks have been done.The first two offences of knowing and reckless harbouring carry the samemandatory term of imprisonment and sentencing range. 78 The offence ofnegligent harbouring does not carry any mandatory penalty, nor is thesentencing range quite as severe. 79 While the punishment structure wouldlead us to believe that the key difference is between the more seriousknowing/reckless harbouring on the one hand and negligent harbouringon the other, reckless harbouring turns out not to be recklessness at all –but a species of negligence. Criminal lawyers understand the differencebetween recklessness and negligence to be this – that recklessness can beestablished only if there is actual suspicion of a state of affairs; and thatnegligence is the absence of such suspicion, but the circumstances aresuch that the accused ought to have suspected. 80But the form of“recklessness” legislated is not recklessness, as commonly understood, atall – for one may perform only two of the three checks and yet notentertain actual suspicion that the person employed was illegal. It appearsto be, in the scheme of things, a form of gross negligence.52 However well meaning, the legislative activity surrounding theImmigration Act has been most unfortunate for the consistentdevelopment of mens rea in Singapore. 81 Can it now not be argued that77 The new ss 57(7A) to 57(7D).78 Section 57(1)(iv) provides for a mandatory term of at least six months’imprisonment, to a maximum of two years.79 Section 57(1)(v) provides for a discretionary term of imprisonment for up to oneyear.80 For example, see the adoption of the Court of Appeal in Ng Kwok Chun v PP [1993]1 SLR 55 at 64, [37], of the pronouncement of the Supreme Court of Canada in R vSault Ste Marie (1978) 85 DLR (3d) 161 at 170:Where the offence is criminal, the Crown must establish a mental element,namely, that the accused who committed the prohibited act did so intentionallyor recklessly, with knowledge of the facts constituting the offence, or with wilfulblindness toward them. Mere negligence is excluded from the concept of themental element required for conviction.81 As a matter of internal logic, the new hierarchy applies only harbouring offences andnot, as yet, to employment offences – it is not easy to understand why.
Page 1 and 2: (2006) 18 SAcLJ Managing Mens Rea i
Page 3 and 4: 316Singapore Academy of Law Journal
Page 25: 338Singapore Academy of Law Journal

2. Managing Mens Rea in Singapore - Singapore Academy of Law

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?