SINGAPORE: The High Court ruled on Friday( Aug 4 ) that the chief editor of the alternative news website The Online Citizen will not be required to serve an in-default jail term or pay a fine after his initial sentence was commuted.
Terry Xu Yuanchen was initially given a three-week prison sentence for criminal defamation, which he had already served. However, on May 4, an appeal that was successful resulted in an S$ 8, 000( US$ 5, 960 ) fine. & nbsp,
In November 2021, Xu was found guilty of defaming Singaporean Cabinet members for endorsing the release of a notice in September 2018 that claimed” problem at the highest strata.” According to his attorney Remy Choo Zheng Xi, the Online Citizen has since changed its name to The Online Citizens Asia and is currently based in Taiwan. & nbsp,
Justice Aedit Abdullah reduced the three-week jail sentence to a S$ 8, 000 fine after Xu’s appeal because he thought it was” manifestly excessive.” He therefore scheduled a follow-up hearing for Mr. Choo to determine whether Xu would be sentenced to the two days of jail in proxy for the S$ 8,000 fine or if he would prefer to pay the fine. & nbsp,
Deputy Public Prosecutors Mohamed Faizal, Andre Chong, and Niranjan Ranjakunalan argued on Friday that Xu should provide the two-week prison sentence rather than spend the$ 8,000 good.
The prosecution argued in written submissions that it was” not legally permissible for the in-default sentence to be satisfied by relying on the prior imprisonment sentence.”
The prosecution argued that even though the appellant chose to serve the previous imprisonment sentence due to his appeal, if he is unwilling to pay the fine that had been imposed, his in-default sentence must be served in total. & nbsp,
They argued that serving an earlier prison term may not satisfy two important aspects of the in-default statement. & nbsp,
These included the fact that an in-default paragraph only becomes effective when the offender fails to pay the fine and that it was imposed to prevent evasion of the penalty. & nbsp,
Given this, the prosecutors argued that serving an earlier prison sentence before a fine was imposed would never be sufficient to commute the in-default sentence that came with the good. & nbsp,
They also argued that because an in-default word is only triggered when the perpetrator shows that he is unable or unwilling to pay the fine, it cannot be backdated. & nbsp,
They stated in submissions that” allowing the backdating of an in-default sentence in this way would undermine the very purpose of the power, which is to prevent the evasion of & nbsp, a fine, rather than to punish the offender.” & nbsp,
Despite being forewarned about this circumstance, the trial also noted that Xu had purposefully decided to serve his initial prison sentence. & nbsp,
In spite of being explicitly warned by( the prosecution ) of the potential eventuation of an outcome identical to the conditions currently before this Court, he chose to serve the prior prison sentence, the prosecution claimed. & nbsp,
The trial produced documents and noted that, in contrast to his co-accusant Daniel De Costa Augustin, Xu had made an informed choice not to apply for loan pending appeal.
Upon appeal, De Costa’s three-week prison sentence was replaced with a fine of S$ 10,000 for the letter he had written, which had been found to be unlawfully defamatory. & nbsp,
The prosecution claimed that because the current circumstance was entirely of Xu’s” personal making ,” he if” have small cause for complaint.” & nbsp,
Mr. Choo argued in response that it would be abnormal for his client to provide the in-default jail phrase in addition to his initial sentence. & nbsp,
He made reference to a part of the Criminal Procedure Code that mandated that before determining the effective date for an prison sentence, the court must take into account all relevant facts.
Any member of the public may be surprised, in my opinion, that the three weeks earlier served do not matter, and the appellant remains answerable to either provide two weeks’ worth of imprisonment added to the previous three, spend S$ 8, 000, or be content to enforcement for that S$ 8,000, according to Justice Abdullah’s oratory remarks.
The plaintiff would have been better off if he had lost his appeal, according to the court’s reduction in sentence, which effectively makes his punishment more serious.
Justice Abdullah pointed out a legal space because he believed that in order to address this particular problem, justice required him to use an approach that took into account the prison term that had already been served. & nbsp,
He continued by saying that Xu’s decision to offer the then-imposed word shouldn’t be seen as unfair. & nbsp,
Consequently, I rule that the word that has already been served should be regarded as progressing toward the definition sentence imposed on the appellant, leaving nothing unfinished or unpaid in accordance with the judgment I gave in my appeal. “& nbsp,