Publication Type

Journal Article

Version

publishedVersion

Publication Date

12-2025

Abstract

According to a common-law rule in place since the 1993 case of Low Meng Chay v Public Prosecutor [1993] 1 SLR(R) 46, if the court is minded to impose a fine but the offender will clearly be unable to pay a fine, the offender should be sentenced to imprisonment instead (as opposed to a fine coupled with a default imprisonment term). While one can understand why the courts may apply this practice, the practice obscures the crucial distinction between: (a) being sentenced to a fine, then imprisoned in default of payment (which, it is submitted, is the correct course of action); and (b) being sentenced to imprisonment. Further, blurring this distinction can result in a mis‑labelling of the punishment, leading to various consequences for the offender in future. There is room for legislative reform to broaden the courts’ discretion relating to default sentences, as well as for courts to more strongly embrace various flexible means by which an offender can be given the opportunity to pay a fine.

Keywords

criminal procedure, sentencing, imprisonment, fines, Singapore

Discipline

Criminal Law | Public Law and Legal Theory

Research Areas

Public Interest Law, Community and Social Justice; Asian and Comparative Legal Systems; Public Law

Publication

Singapore Academy of Law Journal

Volume

42

First Page

2151

Last Page

2170

ISSN

0218-2009

Identifier

10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2025.102476

Publisher

Singapore Academy of Law

Additional URL

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mathsocsci.2025.102476

Download

Share

COinS