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.