Public Prosecutor v Xu Yuanchen: Default Imprisonment Term and Appeal

In Public Prosecutor v Xu Yuanchen, the Singapore Court of Appeal addressed a criminal reference regarding whether an imprisonment term already served could satisfy a fine imposed on appeal. The High Court had previously substituted a jail sentence with a fine for Xu Yuanchen's criminal defamation conviction. The Court of Appeal, comprising Sundaresh Menon CJ, Tay Yong Kwang JCA, and Andrew Phang Boon Leong SJ, answered the question in the negative, holding that the appellate court should decline to interfere with the original sentence if it has already been served. The Court set aside the fine and dismissed the respondent's appeal against sentence.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

Court of Appeal of the Republic of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal allowed; fine imposed by the High Court set aside, and the respondent's appeal against sentence in the General Division of the High Court dismissed.

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Judgment

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Singapore Court of Appeal clarifies whether a served imprisonment term can satisfy a fine imposed on appeal. Judgment for Public Prosecutor.

1.7 Decision Date

28 October 2024

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party Name	Role	Type	Outcome	Outcome Type	Counsels
Public Prosecutor	Applicant	Government Agency	Appeal Allowed	Won	Niranjan Ranjakunalan of Attorney-General’s Chambers Ang Cheng Hock of Attorney-General’s Chambers Norine Tan of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Xu Yuanchen	Respondent	Individual	Appeal Dismissed	Lost	Choo Zheng Xi of RCL Chambers Law Corporation Chua Shi Jie of RCL Chambers Law Corporation

3. Judges

Judge Name	Title	Delivered Judgment
Sundaresh Menon	Chief Justice	No
Tay Yong Kwang	Justice of the Court of Appeal	Yes
Andrew Phang Boon Leong	Senior Judge	No

4. Counsels

Counsel Name	Organization
Niranjan Ranjakunalan	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Ang Cheng Hock	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Norine Tan	Attorney-General’s Chambers
Choo Zheng Xi	RCL Chambers Law Corporation
Chua Shi Jie	RCL Chambers Law Corporation

4. Facts

The respondent was convicted of criminal defamation for publishing a defamatory article.
The District Judge sentenced the respondent to three weeks imprisonment.
The respondent chose to serve his sentence immediately and did not apply for a stay of execution.
The High Court upheld the conviction but substituted the imprisonment sentence with a fine of $8,000.
The High Court treated the previously served sentence as going towards the default sentence imposed on appeal.
The Public Prosecutor filed a criminal reference to the Court of Appeal regarding the satisfaction of the default imprisonment term.

5. Formal Citations

Public Prosecutor v Xu Yuanchen, Criminal Reference No 1 of 2023, [2024] SGCA 45

6. Timeline

Date	Event
2018-09-04	Respondent approved publication of defamatory article.
2022-04-21	Respondent sentenced to three weeks imprisonment by the District Judge.
2022-10-28	Appeal heard by the General Division of the High Court.
2023-01-01	High Court issued Judgment 1.
2023-01-01	High Court issued Judgment 2.
2024-06-27	Court of Appeal reserved judgment.
2024-10-29	Court of Appeal delivered judgment.

7. Legal Issues

Satisfaction of Default Imprisonment Term
- Outcome: The Court held that an imprisonment term imposed in default of the payment of a fine cannot be satisfied by an imprisonment term that was earlier served.
- Category: Substantive
Interpretation of 'Imprisonment' in Criminal Procedure Code
- Outcome: The Court clarified that the term 'imprisonment' in the CPC does not explicitly include or exclude default terms of imprisonment, requiring a contextual analysis.
- Category: Procedural

8. Remedies Sought

Criminal Reference to the Court of Appeal

9. Cause of Actions

Criminal Defamation

10. Practice Areas

Criminal Law
Appeals

11. Industries

No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case Name	Court	Affirmed	Citation	Jurisdiction	Significance
Xu Yuanchen v Public Prosecutor and another appeal	High Court	Yes	[2023] 5 SLR 1210	Singapore	Cited as the origin of the question of law referred to the Court of Appeal, regarding the substitution of imprisonment with a fine on appeal.
Xu Yuanchen v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2023] SGHC 217	Singapore	Cited as the follow-up decision to Judgment 1, where the High Court addressed how to deal with the matter of the respondent having already served the initial imprisonment term.
Public Prosecutor v Daniel De Costa Augustin and another	District Court	Yes	[2022] SGMC 22	Singapore	Cited for the trial judge's interpretation of the defamatory article and the initial sentencing of the respondent.
Sim Yeow Kee v Public Prosecutor and another appeal	High Court	Yes	[2016] 5 SLR 936	Singapore	Cited by the respondent to argue that the court has the power to backdate a sentence of corrective training, drawing a parallel to default terms of imprisonment.
Irwan bin Abdullah & Others v Public Prosecutor	Malaysian Court	Yes	[2002] 2 MLJ 577	Malaysia	Distinguished by the respondent, arguing that the issue in Irwan was different as it concerned whether a default sentence could take effect from the date of arrest, whereas the respondent had already served his original sentence.
Chia Kah Boon v Public Prosecutor	Court of Appeal	Yes	[1999] 2 SLR(R) 1163	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the purpose of a default term of imprisonment is both to deter evasion of a fine and to punish the offender for such evasion.
Yap Ah Lai v Public Prosecutor	High Court	Yes	[2014] 3 SLR 180	Singapore	Cited for the principle that the purpose of a default term of imprisonment is both to deter evasion of a fine and to punish the offender for such evasion. Also cited regarding the court's view that a default sentence of imprisonment is not meant to be a substitute punishment for the offence.
Public Prosecutor v Saiful Rizam bin Assim and other appeals	Court of Appeal	Yes	[2014] 2 SLR 495	Singapore	Cited for the importance of seeking a stay of execution of sentence pending appeal and the principle that the appellate court may decline to enhance a sentence if the offender has already served part of it.
Public Prosecutor v Adith s/o Sarvotham	High Court	Yes	[2014] 3 SLR 649	Singapore	Cited for the importance of seeking a stay of execution of sentence pending appeal and the principle that the appellate court may decline to enhance a sentence if the offender has already served part of it.
Public Prosecutor v Chong Chee Boon Kenneth and other appeals	High Court	Yes	[2021] 5 SLR 1434	Singapore	Cited for the principle that where the offender elects to begin serving his sentence immediately despite an appeal by the Prosecution, then it is the offender who is made to bear the consequences arising from his choice.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute Name	Jurisdiction
Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 397(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code 2010 (2020 Rev Ed)	Singapore
ss 499 and 500 of the Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 3(1) of the Computer Misuse Act (Cap 50A, 2007 Rev Ed)	Singapore
s 6 of the Criminal Procedure Code	Singapore
s 319 of the Criminal Procedure Code	Singapore
s 318 of the Criminal Procedure Code	Singapore
Customs Act (Cap 70, 2004 Rev Ed)	Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

Default Imprisonment Term
Stay of Execution
Criminal Reference
Criminal Defamation
Sentence Variation
Custodial Threshold
Backdating of Sentence

15.2 Keywords

Criminal Procedure
Sentencing
Criminal Reference
Default Imprisonment
Appeal
Singapore Law

17. Areas of Law

Area Name	Relevance Score
Criminal Law	90
Sentencing	90
Criminal Procedure	90
Defamation Law	80
Commercial Disputes	30
Corporate Law	20

16. Subjects

Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
Criminal References