Former maid given jail for false declaration acquitted on appeal to High Court

A former domestic helper from India who was sentenced to 10 weeks’ jail in 2023 for making a false statement in a work pass application has been acquitted by the High Court after she appealed against her conviction.

Ms Alka, 44, who goes by one name, had contested a charge under the Employment of Foreign Manpower Act for falsely declaring that she was employed by Mr Anil Tripathi as a foreign domestic worker when she “did not have the intention to be employed as such”.

The district judge who convicted her found that there was an agreement between Ms Alka and Mr Anil for their mutual benefit – he would be listed as her employer, allowing her to stay in Singapore with her boyfriend, while she would cook for him three to four times a week.

In her appeal, her lawyer, Mr Sarbrinder Singh of Sanders Law, argued that there was no false declaration as Ms Alka had indeed worked for Mr Anil.

On July 25, High Court Justice Aedit Abdullah allowed the appeal and overturned her conviction.

The judge determined that her declaration was not false after considering the meaning of what amounted to “employment” under the Act.

Justice Abdullah found that the definition of employment was broad enough to cover occasional cooking or other minor work, done for no pay.

The supposed false statement was not in fact false, as Ms Alka was employed within the meaning of the Act, the judge concluded.

He added that the evidence presented during the trial did not support the charge.

Ms Alka had worked as a maid in Singapore since 2014. In October 2017, her then employer told her that her services were no longer required.

She told her boyfriend, Mr Gurwinder Kumar, that she wished to remain in Singapore, and he subsequently introduced her to Mr Anil, who is an Indian national.

Ms Alka then signed an application form for a domestic helper, declaring that Mr Anil was her employer. The form was submitted to the Ministry of Manpower (MOM) on Dec 22, 2017.

On Oct 15, 2018, she was arrested by MOM officers for working as a sales assistant at a clothing store in Serangoon Road.

She pleaded guilty to working as a sales assistant without a valid work pass, and was fined $4,500. She did not appeal against the fine.

During her trial on the false declaration charge, Ms Alka said that she had lived at Mr Anil’s flat for four months before he allowed her to live with her boyfriend.

She said that although she no longer lived with Mr Anil, she commuted to his home to do housework.

She said she was paid $450 a month, although there was no record of any salary payment by Mr Anil or receipt by Ms Alka.

In a brief judgment, Justice Abdullah said the prosecution had referred to breaches of work pass regulations, but this was irrelevant in determining whether Ms Alka made a false declaration.

These are the regulations that, among other things, require the employer to pay a fixed monthly salary to the maid, and require the maid to live at the home address stated in the work permit.

The judge declined to amend the charge before him, adding that it was for the prosecution to decide whether Ms Alka should be prosecuted for any other offence.

Justice Abdullah emphasised that the “failure in the charge” was not merely what some might see as a “technicality”.

“Criminal prosecutions put those accused at risk of being imprisoned, fined or caned. Thus, the charge that an accused person faces must be clear, definite and founded properly on the provisions of the law, and a person should be convicted only if the evidence supports the charge,” he said.

Mr Anil was fined for contravening work pass conditions by failing to ensure that Ms Alka lived at the address stated on her work permit.

In a phone interview with The Straits Times, Ms Alka expressed gratitude to Mr Singh for helping her win the case.

Speaking in simple English, she said she has been staying with friends since her arrest and has been allowed to remain in Singapore on a special pass that expires on July 30.

She said she hoped to be permitted to work in Singapore and that she has found potential employment at a restaurant.

Source: Straits Times © SPH Media Limited. Permission required for reproduction.

Alka v Public Prosecutor [2024] SGHC 193

Two fined $700 each for high-rise littering under presumption of guilt clause ADV: [webinar] Digital Asset Case Studies: Insights from China, SG and Global Initiatives (3 September 2024, 1 Public CPD Point)