Commentary: Should public opinion matter in sentencing of criminal cases?

SINGAPORE: Last August, 10 people were arrested in an anti-money laundering raid, in which S$3 billion worth of assets were seized or frozen.
The last of the 10 offenders, Su Jianfeng, was sentenced to 17 months’ imprisonment on Jun 10, bringing the saga to a close. Su’s sentence was the highest amongst the 10 offenders, who received sentences between 13 and 16 months’ imprisonment for their roles in the scheme.
Since Jul 26, all 10 suspects have been deported from Singapore. This is because they were remanded after being charged in August 2023, and have completed their jail terms after factoring in a one-third remission for good behaviour.
Some members of the public have expressed the view that the sentences imposed on the 10 offenders were too lenient, perhaps because the case has been described as “one of the largest money laundering cases that have been prosecuted in the nation”.
This case brings to mind other times the public voiced its disapproval with the sentence imposed by the courts.
In 2019, National University of Singapore undergraduate Terence Siow Kai Yuen was ordered to undergo probation for molesting a woman on board an MRT train. Siow was assessed to be suitable for probation because his academic results showed he had the “potential to excel in life”.
This decision drew a sharp response from the public. An online petition titled “Say NO to Favourable Sentences for ‘Educated’ Sex Offenders” gathered more than 100,000 signatures.
Separately, the prosecution filed a notice of appeal against the probation order, and the student was sentenced by the Chief Justice to two weeks’ jail.
Strong public reactions to cases beget the question: Does, and should, public opinion make any difference to the sentences imposed by the court?
When the public views that a sentence imposed is too lenient or harsh, their ire is frequently directed at the courts, which imposes the sentence. This presupposes that the courts are in complete control of and has full discretion over the sentencing process.
While sentencing offenders is within the courts’ sole, unfettered discretion, the courts’ sentencing function must also be seen in the context of its role in the legal system.
First, it is Singapore’s parliament that determines what acts ought to be criminalised, and how severely these actions ought to be viewed.
This is done through passing laws criminalising those acts and setting the sentencing range for the offence. The more serious the offence, the higher the maximum punishment would be. The maximum sentence would thus reflect the public’s view, through parliament, towards that offence.
Through legislation, parliament may also limit the courts’ sentencing discretion through the imposition of mandatory minimum sentences. In some instances, such as for some drug trafficking and murder offences, parliament may even remove the sentencing court’s discretion altogether through the mandatory death penalty.
Parliament also determines the offences and offenders for which a community-based sentence would be applicable.
Second, the judiciary can only sentence an accused person based on the case that the Public Prosecutor brings before it. It is the prosecution who decides what, and how many, charges an accused person should be charged with.
The Public Prosecutor may also extend plead-guilty offers to accused persons, offering to either reduce the severity or number of charges they face should they elect to plead guilty. This discretion rests solely with the Public Prosecutor, so long as the acts alleged fit within the laws passed by parliament.
It is in this context that the courts determine the appropriate sentence to be imposed in each case: The nature and number of charges brought by the prosecution, and the minimum and maximum sentences fixed by parliament.
How then, should the judiciary exercise its sentencing discretion? For justice to be done, the courts must ensure that the sentences imposed are principled and consistent.
There are numerous mechanisms that operate to promote consistency in sentencing. These include the use of sentencing frameworks to guide the court in exercising its discretion, the formation of the Sentencing Advisory Panel to issue non-binding guidelines on matters relating to sentencing, the use of sentencing precedents to ensure that like offenders are treated alike, and so on. 
To ensure consistency, and to avoid arbitrariness in sentencing, it is thus important for the judiciary to be insulated from public opinion, and to be free to exercise its discretion in a principled and consistent manner, without fear or favour.
A judicial system that can be easily influenced by the public’s views would be seen as one that is biased and arbitrary, and one that would lose the trust and confidence of society. 
What then can the public do if they feel strongly about a particular decision made by the judiciary?
Given the judiciary’s role in interpreting and applying the laws set by parliament, any changes to the law should thus be made through parliament.
As stated by the Minister for Law and Home Affairs in a Facebook post after Terence Siow’s case, “If, after the appeal is decided, we, as a society, still generally believe that the law should deliver a different outcome, then it is not the Courts’ fault. It is then for parliament to deal with that, change the law.”
Given the strong public reaction towards the outcomes of the billion-dollar money laundering case, it is no surprise that questions about the deterrent effect of Singapore’s anti-money laundering laws have already been raised by parliamentarians to the Government.
It is up to the government to determine whether the current sentencing regime for such cases is adequate, and whether it should be changed.
Mark Yeo is a Director at Fortress Law Corporation. He was formerly a Deputy Public Prosecutor with the Attorney-General’s Chambers.