[Schenker]

Originally Posted by goodpartner

What will happen if she declare honestly in the white card that she has ever enter Singapore using another different & fake passport more than 3 years ago when working in GL? This is not uncommon for them I think.

Will she be sentenced to CWP on arriving the airport during checkout or ask to U-turn back on the next flight? If so, what's the point of being honest in the while card?

Or perhaps they should declare it during the VISA application process back in the country, which will probably be rejected.

I'm asking on behalf of an ex-GL-WL who wish to visit Sg after more than 3-5 years, don't mind declaring whatever, but worried about being sent to CWP. What's the best approach?

I suddenly remember one 2006 judgment case whereby you and some bros here can upon.

Public Prosecutor v Tessie Cuyam Verterra alias Chen Tessie Verterra
[2006] SGDC 187

Judgment
30 August 2006                                                                                                       

District Judge Malcolm BH Tan:

The Background of the Case

1          The accused pleaded guilty to one charge under the Immigration Act, Cap 133 (‘the Act’) on 20 July 2006.  Two other charges under the Act were taken into consideration for the purposes of sentencing.  I imposed a sentence of 13 months’ imprisonment, and ordered the removal of the accused from Singapore upon completion of her sentence. The accused appealed against her sentence on 28 July 2006.

The Charges

2          The first charge (DAC 32442/2006), under s 36 of the Act, to which the accused pled guilty reads -

You, Tessie Chen Verterra @ Chen Tessie Verterra, are charged that you, on 19 December 2005, being a person who was lawfully sent out from Singapore on 13 November 2004, did enter Singapore without the permission in writing of the Controller of Immigration, Singapore, and you have thereby committed an offence under section 36 of the Immigration Act (Cap 133) 1985 Ed, punishable under section 36 of the Act.

3          The other 2 charges are for offences under section 57(1)(k), punishable under section 57(1)(vi) of the Act for obtaining a social visit pass and an extension pass by making false statements in the disembarkation forms, on 19 December 2005 and 3 May 2006 respectively.

Facts

4          The accused admitted the facts without any qualification.  She is a Philippines national.  She had been arrested by Anti-Vice officers on 10 November 2004for soliciting. She was not charged, but on 13 November 2004, she was lawfully sent out of Singapore to Manila. Prior to her repatriation, she was served a written notice informing her that she was barred from entering Singapore between 13 November 2004 and 13 November 2007. She was also informed that she would have to make a prior application for the written permission of the Controller of Immigration before she can enter Singapore. She was also warned in the same notice that a failure to do so could result in prosecution and a sentence of between 1 to 3 years upon conviction.

5          The facts state that the accused then consciously decided to return to Singapore with a new passport. She obtained a new passport with a different serial number and a slightly different name, viz. “Chen Tessie Verterra”, and entered Singapore with it on 19 December 2005. This entry was made without the prior written permission of the Controller and while the ban was still in force, thus contravening s 36 of the Act.

Antecedents

6          The accused has no previous convictions.

Plea in Mitigation

7          The plea in mitigation was short. She stated that she was sorry for the offence. She pointed out that she was married to a Singaporean and had a 4 month old baby. She implored the Court not to impose a custodial sentence as no one would look after the baby.

8          I must note at this point that the accused had not shown any indication that she did not comprehend the charges, the facts and the effects of pleading guilty. The charges and facts were read to her in the Tagalog language by an interpreter. In fact, she showed every indication of understanding the proceedings and was able to articulate a short plea in mitigation.

Sentence

9          In sentencing the accused, I took into consideration the seriousness of the offences and the need for a deterrent sentence for offences of this nature. The problem of illegal immigration offenders faced by Singapore is a real and acute one. Illegal immigration offenders pose a serious threat to Singapore’s safety and security. Such is the severity of the problem that Parliament saw it fit to enact various mandatory minimum sentences of imprisonment or caning for various immigration offences. It is clear that the draconian nature of the Immigration Act is to curb the rise in the large number of illegal immigrants flocking to our shores to seek illegal employment, or for other purposes.

10        Offences of such nature are difficult to detect, and Singapore, being a small island State, is vulnerable to the serious threat posed by immigration offenders, who have no qualms in contravening the immigration laws of this country. This is despite the strict enforcement measures taken and stiff punishments enacted to curb the flow of immigration offenders. The accused in this case was one such person. She was not deterred by her previous experience of being arrested by the police. After being repatriated and banned from Singapore, she decided to return unlawfully barely a year later, in contravention of the ban issued to her by the Controller of Immigration.

11        The gravity of this particular offence is reflected in the mandatory minimum imprisonment term prescribed by the legislature. In this case, the accused knew full well that she had been banned from entering Singapore and required the prior written permission of the Controller of Immigration if she wanted to re-enter Singapore. Nevertheless, she made a calculated decision to subvert the ban in order to visit her husband. She proceeded to re-enter Singapore, knowing full well that she was labouring under a ban. A deliberate deception was practised on the immigration authorities when she used a different passport to enter Singapore, thereby concealing the fact that she was subject to an entry ban.  This was exacerbated by her conduct in making false declarations, as set out in the 2 charges that were taken into consideration.

12        Apart from the plea of guilt, there was precious little mitigation in this case. On the plea of guilt, it is established law that a such a plea carries little or no weight when the offender is arrested in circumstances in which the prosecution would have no difficulty in proving the charge, or if the offender had been caught red-handed: Sim Gek Yong v PP [1995] 1 SLR 537, and Xia Qin Lai v PP  [1999] 4 SLR 343. The present case clearly falls within that category.

13        Nevertheless, I paid heed to her mitigation plea. She claimed that there was no one to look after her baby. I was not informed where the baby was, but since she had illegally entered Singapore on 19 December 2005, and the baby was said to be four months old, the inference is that the child was probably born in Singapore and is thus still in Singapore as there is no indication that the accused had left the country since her return. This would explain the apparently heartless comment of the Prosecuting Officer that the husband could look after the baby.

14        After a careful consideration of all the circumstances of the case, I was of the view that the minimum sentence would not be appropriate or sufficient in this case, especially as two charges were taken into consideration. In PP v Mok Ping Wuen Maurice [1999] 1 SLR 138,the High Court held that "the effect ... is to enhance the sentence that would otherwise be awarded."

15        Taking the facts and mitigation plea into account, I sentenced her to 13 months imprisonment and further ordered that she be removed from Singapore after serving her sentence.  I had in fact exercised leniency in her case after considering the fact that she would be parted from her baby.

16        The accused is currently serving sentence.