1

Lim Chin Aik v R

[1963] AC 160, [1963] 1 All ER 223, [1963] 2 WLR 42, 106 Sol Jo 1028
Court: PC
Judgment Date: circa 1963
Catchwords & Digest
BRITISH NATIONALITY, IMMIGRATION AND RACE RELATIONS - CONTROL OF IMMIGRATION CONTROL OF ADMISSION - GENERAL REQUIREMENTS FOR ADMISSION - REGISTRATION AND
OTHER RESTRICTIONS - SINGAPORE IMMIGRATION ORDINANCE 1952--ORDER PROHIBITING
ENTRANCE--IGNORANCE OF ORDER
In 1959 appellant who previously had lived in Singapore with his family, but had left in 1954 in suspicious
circumstances, began to visit Singapore daily. On May 28, 1959, an order was made under Singapore
Immigration Ordinance s 9, prohibiting appellant entering Singapore. In June 1959, he began to live with his
family again in Singapore. Appellant was convicted under s 6(2), (3) of the ordinance, as amended, which
enacted that it should not be lawful for a person prohibited by order from entering Singapore to enter
Singapore and rendered such entry into, or remaining in Singapore, an offence. There was no evidence that
the order was served on or communicated to appellant, and it was conceded that mens rea on his part had
not been proved. Section 9(3) of the ordinance provided for publication of an order directed to an individual.
Various provisions of the ordinance other than s 6 and s 9, contained phrases such as 'knowingly,' 'without
reasonable cause' or 'without reasonable excuse' in relation to the doing of an act, as distinct from the
passive continuance of behaviour previously lawful; but no such phrase appeared in s 9 or s 6. On appeal:
Held (1) the principle that ignorance of the law was no excuse was inapplicable where, as here (even if the
making of the order prohibiting appellant's entry was a legislative, as distinct from an administrative act),
there was no legislative provision for the publication of the order or designed to enable the man concerned to
find out by appropriate inquiry what the law affecting him in this respect was: (2) the presumption that mens
rea was an essential ingredient of the offence had not been ousted either by the terms of the Singapore
Immigration Ordinance, or by its subject-matter, (a) notwithstanding, as regards the construction of the
ordinance, the absence from s 6 of such a word as 'knowingly' or a comparable qualification which were to
be found in other sections, and (b), in regard to the subject-matter of the ordinance particularly for the reason
that to impose absolute liability on a prohibited person could not have ensured observance of the order, since
he could not have complied with it if he did not know of it and no practicable means of his ascertaining that
he had become a prohibited person was provided by the ordinance.
Per curiam: where it can be shown that the imposition of strict liability would result in the prosecution and
conviction of a class of persons whose conduct could not in any way affect the observance of the law, then,
even where the statute is dealing with a grave social evil, strict liability is not likely to be intended.
Cases referring to this case
Annotations: All CasesCourt: ALL COURTS
Sort by: Judgment Date (Latest First)
Treatment
Case Name
Citations
[2006] PNCA 1, [2006] 4
Distinguished
R v Christian (No 2)
LRC 746
[2004] EWHC 187
Corporation of London (Admin), 169 JP 263,
Considered
v Eurostar (UK) Ltd
[2004] All ER (D) 134
(Jan)

Court
Date
Signal
Pitcairn
02/03/2006
Is CA
Admin Ct20/01/2004