Ho Beng Hock v Public Prosecutor

Appellant(s): Ho Beng Hock

Respondent(s):

• Pendakwa Raya
• [Pendakwa Raya]

• YA Datuk Ravinthran a/l Paramaguru
• YA Datuk Azimah binti Omar
• YA Datuk Noorin binti Badaruddin

• The appellant was convicted by the High Court under section 26J of the Anti-Trafficking in Persons and Anti-Smuggling of Migrants Act 2009 (ATIPSOM) for conveying smuggled migrants.
• The appellant was sentenced to two years imprisonment and forfeiture of his vehicle after being found driving six Indonesian men towards the Malaysian/Indonesian border via an illegal road at midnight.
• The six Indonesian men comprised three with expired passports and three with no valid travel documents, all of whom had no record of legal entry or exit from Malaysia and were attempting to return to Indonesia unlawfully.

• Whether the six Indonesian men qualified as "smuggled migrants" under section 2 of ATIPSOM, specifically regarding unlawful exit from Malaysia.
• Whether the appellant possessed the requisite knowledge or reason to believe that the individuals he was conveying were smuggled migrants.
• Whether the charge was defective for using the word "involved" instead of "engages" as stipulated in section 26J of ATIPSOM.

• The Court dismissed the appeal against conviction, affirming that the definition of "smuggling of migrants" in ATIPSOM encompasses both unlawful entry into and unlawful exit from a country.
• The Court found that the appellant's knowledge could be inferred from the surrounding circumstances, such as driving at an unusual hour on an illegal route towards the border, and rejected his defence as inconsistent and improbable.
• The Court held that the use of "involved" instead of "engages" in the charge did not render it defective, as the words carried similar meanings in context, and the appellant was not misled, with any error being curable under the Criminal Procedure Code.