Court of Appeal rules on prison sentences cannot offset fines if the sentence is converted into a fine

On 29 October 2024, the Singapore Court of Appeal clarified the sentencing procedure, ruling that a prison sentence already served could not offset fines imposed on appeal.

unanimous decision The opinion from the judges emerged from the case of Xu Yuan Chen, also known as Terry Xu, and answered a legal query from the Attorney General’s Chambers (AGC) regarding the nature of penalty offsets if the initial prison sentence was later converted to a fine.

The AGC had questioned whether an offender sentenced to imprisonment without seeking a stay of execution could include that time in a fine later imposed by the High Court.

The Court of Appeal answered unequivocally: “No” – a previous prison sentence cannot compensate for fines imposed in lieu of the sentence imposed on appeal. This decision reinforces procedural distinctions between conditions of detention and fines under Singapore’s legal framework.

Background of the Case and First Decision

Xu, who is the director of The Online Citizen (TOC), criminal defamation charge It’s about an article published on the TOC website in September 2018.

This article, attributed to “Willy Sum” but written by Xu’s co-defendant Daniel De Costa, included phrases such as “corruption at the highest levels” that allegedly accused Singapore Cabinet members of corruption.

Both Xu and De Costa were charged under Articles 499 and 500 of the Criminal Code.

Initially, Xu was sentenced to three weeks in prison in April 2022. But instead of applying for a stay of execution, Xu chose to serve the sentence immediately, in part due to his plans to move to Taiwan. He later appealed both the conviction and sentence.

In May 2023, the Supreme Court upheld Xu’s conviction, but reduced his sentence The original prison sentence for defamation, which included a fine of S$8,000 and an additional two-week delay penalty if not paid, was found to be “manifestly excessive”.

Justice Aedit Abdullah noted a difference in seriousness between “saying that cabinet members were corrupt” and suggesting that they allowed corruption to continue through incompetence.

In response to the AGC’s objection that Xu’s sentence be counted as satisfaction of the two-week default imprisonment for the fine, Justice Abdullah said: Reigned August 2023 That the three-week prison sentence that Xu had already served should be deemed sufficient to cover the default prison sentence associated with the fine imposed.

Following this decision, the AGC referred a public interest question to the Court of Appeal, arguing that Xu’s completed prison sentence should not be included in the newly imposed fine.

Position of the Prosecutor’s Office

AGC, Article 319 of the Convention Criminal Procedure Code The CPC dealing with fines does not support the use of imprisonment to cover fines imposed on appeal.

The AGC’s legal team stressed that the default prison sentence for unpaid fines operated as a “possible” consequence, triggered only if the offender failed to pay the fine. Therefore, they argued, fines replacing imprisonment could not be imposed retroactively.

The AGC highlighted that the default prison sentence exists “to prevent evasion of fines and to enforce payment, rather than as a substitute for a primary prison sentence.” They argued that allowing prior imprisonment would defeat the deterrent effect because defendants could be sentenced to short prison terms to avoid paying fines in full.

Arguments of the Defense

Xu’s advisor Remy Choo Zheng Xi RCL Chambers Law FirmHe argued that Xu’s completed prison sentence, equivalent to or exceeding the Supreme Court’s two-week delay penalty, should eliminate his liability for the fine.

Referring to Sections 318 and 319 of the CPC, they argued that these provisions provide flexibility in reflecting the time spent in jail in the fines imposed. Xu’s legal team argued that because the fine was in lieu of a completed prison sentence, he should not have to pay or serve an additional period of default.

The defense also argued that this interpretation would address procedural fairness, as Xu would otherwise be sentenced twice for the same crime, even though he had already served his first sentence. They argued that default imprisonment should be treated similarly to primary imprisonment, with options for the Court to consider the offender’s circumstances.

Reasoning of the Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal, led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, ultimately sided with the AGC’s interpretation and emphasized the legal distinction between fine and imprisonment in sentencing.

The court held that allowing prior imprisonment to serve the fine imposed on appeal would be contrary to the purpose of default imprisonment, which is “to compel the payment of fines by deterring non-payment” rather than to replace previous imprisonment.

The decision stated the following:

“If the offender… elects to serve such a prison sentence… and the sentence is later commuted upon objection to the fine, the prison sentence imposed for non-payment of the fine cannot be served by the prison sentence previously served.”

The court explained that default prison sentences should not be considered interchangeable with primary prison sentences. Default terms operate “proactively” and only apply if the offender fails to pay the fine and are not intended to replace the original penalty.

The court also stated that:

“In the unique circumstances of the present case, we are of the view that the proper course is for the Judge to find that the custody threshold has not been exceeded, that a fine is the appropriate penalty, but to decline to interfere with the proceedings. Sentence imposed by DJ on the grounds that the defendant chose to serve a prison sentence despite appealing the conviction and sentence.”

The Importance of Postponing Execution

The decision underlined procedural expectations when imprisonment sentences are appealed. Xu’s choice to serve his sentence without seeking a postponement limited the Court’s ability to modify the sentence on appeal.

Referring to past cases, the court stated that the stay of execution is vital to preserve the discretion of appeal and said:

“Our courts have emphasized the importance of requesting a stay of execution of the sentence pending appeal to ensure that the appellate court’s discretion is not limited by the fact that the offender has already served his original sentence.”

The court announced that offenders who choose to serve sentences will immediately assume responsibility for those decisions. Xu’s voluntary renunciation of his term, intended to facilitate his replacement, effectively bound him to accept the results of this election.

However, the Court of Appeal ultimately set aside the High Court’s S$8,000 fine and rejected Xu’s appeal of the sentence modification, confirming that the initial three-week prison sentence was his final sentence.

This decision sets a precedent for Singapore’s stance on sentence modification and restitution, highlighting the different roles of fines and imprisonment and strengthening judicial prospects for defendants who challenge terms of detention.