ALKA v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

[2024] SGHC 193 High Court (General Division) 25 July 2024 • HC/MA 9216/2023/01 • 11 min read
1 cases cited

Catchwords

Practice Areas

Judges (1)

Counsel (7)

Parties (2)

Case Significance

Alka v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 193 was a single judgment delivered on 25 July 2024 (reserved after a hearing on 8 July 2024) by Aedit Abdullah J in the General Division of the High Court, in Magistrate's Appeal No 9216 of 2023. The catchwords cover Criminal Law — Appeal — Statutory offences — Employment of Foreign Manpower Act. The appeal was against the appellant's conviction on one charge under s 22(1)(d) read with s 22(1)(ii) of the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act (Cap 91A, 2009 Rev Ed); the appellant had also pleaded guilty to a separate charge under s 5(2) read with s 5(7) of the Act for working without a valid work pass, which she did not appeal.

The court allowed the appeal, concluding that the charge was not made out against the appellant. The charge alleged that the appellant had made a statement she knew to be false in a material particular, namely that she was employed as a foreign domestic worker by one Anil Tripathi when she had no intention to be so employed. Aedit Abdullah J held that the supposed false statement in the form the appellant filled up was not in fact false, because the appellant was employed within the meaning of the Act, and that reference could not be made to regulations under the Act to determine what amounted to employment. The judge observed that other offences might have been committed but declined in the circumstances to amend or substitute the charge. The appellant was represented by Sanders Law LLC (including Sarbrinder Singh s/o Naranjan Singh), and the respondent by the Ministry of Manpower Legal Services Division.

Summary

Alka appealed against her conviction on a charge under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act of making a statement she knew to be false in a material particular, namely that she was employed as a foreign domestic worker by one Anil Tripathi when she allegedly had no intention to be so employed; she had separately pleaded guilty to a charge of working without a valid work pass, which was not appealed. The General Division of the High Court found that the statement in the form was not in fact false because she was employed within the meaning of the Act, and declined to amend or substitute the charge. The court allowed the appeal against conviction and acquitted her of the charge, with the appeal against sentence accordingly falling away.

What did the court decide in Alka v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 193?

In [2024] SGHC 193, Aedit Abdullah J allowed the appellant's appeal, concluding the charge under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act was not made out because the statement she made was not in fact false, as she was employed within the meaning of the Act.

What was the charge in Alka v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 193?

Per [2024] SGHC 193, the charge under s 22(1)(d) read with s 22(1)(ii) of the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act alleged the appellant falsely stated she was employed as a foreign domestic worker by one Anil Tripathi when she had no intention to be so employed.

Statutes Cited

Cases Cited (1)

SLR (1)
[2022] 1 SLR 771

Referenced in

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2024] SGHC 193)