What Counts as “Fair” Punishment? Analysing Singapore’s Sentencing Advisory Panel

Credits to Unsplash: Tingey Injury Law Firm (https://unsplash.com/photos/brown-wooden-tool-on-white-surface-veNb0DDegzE)

In this Explainer, find out...

Why was the Sentencing Advisory Panel implemented?
What is the role of the Sentencing Advisory Panel?
What are the strengths and limitations of the Sentencing Advisory Panel?

Introduction

Are our punishments too inconsistent? This was the question posed in September 2019, after a 22-year-old student was sentenced to 21 months’ probation (supervision in the community) for molesting a woman on a MRT train. This sentence was perceived as being overly lenient relative to the typical custodial sentence (for example, a prison sentence) for sexual offences.

When questioned, the State Courts cited the student’s academic achievements and “potential to excel in life” as a mitigating factor in his sentencing. Significant public outrage ensued, prompting the case to be successfully appealed, with the student eventually being sentenced to two weeks’ imprisonment.

Yet this case exposed a gap in Singapore’s legal system. By March 2021, then-Minister for Law K. Shanmugam had delivered a Ministerial Statement, highlighting the need to resolve the discrepancy over meted sentences across different court levels. Disparities in sentencing weaken the perceived fairness of the judicial system. Failing to clarify such disparities to the public also risks eroding transparency. Should this remain unaddressed, trust and compliance with Singapore’s legal system would diminish.

Singapore’s answer to this issue emerged in the formation of the Sentencing Advisory Panel (SAP). Composed of members from organisations such as the Ministry of Law and the Attorney-General’s Chambers, the SAP aims to publish accessible sentencing guidelines that lend more structure and transparency to the judiciary’s sentencing process.

In this Policy Explainer, we will delve deeper into the work of the SAP. Particularly, its importance in promoting consistency within Singapore’s judicial system will be explored.

Why was the Sentencing Advisory Panel established?

Predecessor to the Sentencing Advisory Panel

Prior to the establishment of the SAP, Singapore relied on a Sentencing Council. This comprised members of the judiciary to promote coherence in sentencing. Formed in March 2013, the Sentencing Council intended to mitigate the exercise of wide judicial discretion, which had caused divergent outcomes for similar offences.

The Council established a process where appropriate cases could be heard by a three-judge High Court panel. Such cases usually involved sentencing appeals, and the Council would use these cases to create sentencing frameworks while deciding upon the outcome of the case. These frameworks set structured sentencing guidelines for specific offences, taking into account relevant factors and adopting a step-by-step approach to determine the indicative sentencing ranges within statutory limits.

For instance, sentencing guidelines now advise judges to consider both “harm” and “culpability” as the parameters to evaluate a crime’s severity. “Harm” refers to the extent of injury caused by the crime, such as physical damages or psychological harm. “Culpability” refers to the offender’s degree of blame, and considers factors such as intent and awareness of consequences. Judges may then adjust the sentence for offender-specific factors, such as admissions of guilt and prior criminal records.

Since its inception, the number of sentencing guidelines has grown rapidly. At least 60 sentencing guideline judgments have been issued since October 2022.

Though commended for its efforts in establishing consistency in sentencing, sentencing guidelines were only created when an appropriate case reached the High Court. Since the High Court largely deals with the most severe crimes, such as murder and drug trafficking, lower‑level offences were often excluded. Furthermore, in some cases, the Court was not permitted to consider useful information such as data relating to crime trends. This was because criminal courts primarily operated on evidence directly related to the case, rather than wider criminology-related data.

Evolving Beyond the Sentencing Council

By March 2021, issuing sentencing guidelines for cases heard in the High Court proved to be insufficient in maintaining broader judicial consistency. Particularly, sexual offences heard in the State Courts involving outrage of modesty and molestation continued to receive wide judicial discretion. This resulted in fluctuating leniency for certain offenders. This led to growing public dissent, as such sentences were viewed as disproportionate to the harm caused. Indeed, there was a perception that some offenders were “let off easy”.

Amidst a wider call for harsher punishments and clearer sentencing benchmarks, the matter was addressed in a Ministerial Statement on 5 March 2021. There, Minister Shanmugam reinforced that offenders who intentionally commit crimes, regardless of severity, cannot expect to be treated leniently.

Yet he noted that concerns over discrepancies in sentencing and the perceived leniency towards some offenders were valid. Such discrepancies arise due to judicial discretion in weighing the severity of the offence vis-à-vis the individual circumstances of the case. To that end, certain factors such as age and prior records can affect the final sentence imposed on the offender.

Still, public perceptions of injustice emerged when factors such as educational background seemingly influenced sentencing outcomes. In this context, Minister Shanmugam clarified the Attorney-General’s Chambers’ (AGC) stance that one’s academic potential should not carry much weight as a mitigating factor for sexual and hurt offences, as the “need for proportionate punishment must take precedence over rehabilitation”. As such, to minimise discrepancies in sentencing across all court levels, there was a call to expand the scope of the Sentencing Council.

What does the Sentencing Advisor Panel do?

Objectives of the SAP

The SAP was formed following the Ministerial Statement in March 2021. Its aim was similar to that of the Sentencing Council — to formulate consistent sentencing guidelines in a more “holistic and consultative” manner, and achieve a higher degree of consistency and transparency in the process.

The courts are not required to abide strictly by the SAP’s guidelines. However, by allowing both the Prosecution and Defence to cite them in their arguments, they become a legitimate reference point from which these arguments can be evaluated. This would inform the judges’ reasoning and, importantly, reassure the public that their rulings are based on clear principles and not arbitrary judgments. Reassuring the public that sentences are principled is important. This is because public perception goes a long way in shaping the legitimacy of the criminal justice system.

Approaches to Sentencing Guidelines

The SAP’s guidelines tend to propose methodical sentencing approaches for a given category of cases. The SAP has also issued guidelines which encouraged leniency for accused parties who wished to admit to their guilt “as early in the court process as possible”.

These guidelines largely also advise on prescribed punishments, sentence uplifts and reductions, and starting and maximum sentences. For instance, the prevalence of a crime’s occurrence in today’s society is a factor which has justified penalty increases.

At the same time, the SAP’s guidelines have also led to changes in the punishments for certain offences. Such changes may be important to calibrate the harshness of the criminal law towards particular offences. For instance, in August 2024, the SAP’s guidelines on sentencing for scam-related offences were made harsher. This was in light of the rapidly increasing prevalence of scams in Singapore. Those who give a scammer access to their accounts would now be sentenced to at least six months’ imprisonment. As a result, in April 2025, 230 money mules were sentenced under the new guidelines, with the police stating that “more prosecutions” are expected.

Strengths and Limitation of the Sentencing Advisory Panel

Strengths

Consistency in Sentencing

Proponents of the SAP often cite the adoption of a structured sentence reduction framework and its role in guiding courts on sentencing ranges. This framework ensures similar offences receive similar sentences. At the same time, it objectively considers factors including harm and culpability, producing consistent and equitable sentencing outcomes. This helps avoid the perception that some offenders are treated more leniently or harshly than others without justification.

The consistency in sentencing strengthens public accountability, making the judiciary’s processes more transparent and understandable. This supports its core role of delivering justice fairly and equitably. In principle, justice should rely less on subjective considerations, such as an offender’s perceived “bright future”, and focus primarily on objective factors, including an offender’s age and education level. The SAP moves us closer to this ideal.

Public Efficiency and Resource Management

Next, the SAP also contributes to procedural efficiency and conservation of public resources. By incentivising accused persons planning to plead guilty to do so at an earlier stage, the SAP’s guidelines allow the question of guilt to be resolved without the need for trial. This speeds up case resolution and enhances the efficiency of the justice system. However, this may also come with risks that will be addressed below.

Enhancing the predictability of sentencing outcomes also allows defence counsels and prosecutors to more accurately anticipate likely sentences. This allows them to make better-informed decisions on case strategy as parties are more likely to converge on realistic sentencing expectations. This facilitates earlier resolutions of guilt for those who have truly committed crimes, especially through plea discussions and Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) sessions. As such, there are less delays from lengthy trials, allowing the judiciary to deliver timely justice without compromising the fairness of contested proceedings.

Complementing Judicial Decision-Making

Crucially, the SAP was careful to emphasise that application of sentence reductions in individual cases is ultimately discretionary and non-binding. This means that the courts can decide whether to follow or depart from the SAP’s guidelines, highlighting their function as guidance instead of prescriptive rules. Judges therefore preserve the discretion to depart from the SAP framework in exceptional or novel cases where its application would not make sense or would create a more unjust outcome, preserving their function of interpreting and applying the law.

In this way, the SAP complements the existing legal framework while avoiding the risk of overstretching the criminal justice system. This has been seen as timely, given that abuse of court processes has become more common in Singapore. Ultimately, the deliberate manner in which the SAP is applied aligns with the preference of Singapore’s courts to develop the law incrementally. This is due to Singapore’s common law system being predicated on the doctrine of judicial precedent (stare decisis). Thus, the SAP helps to evolve Singapore’s justice system, while keeping it in kilter with the principles that underpin it.

Limitations

Pressure to Plead Guilty

That said, guidelines developed by the SAP may risk creating less desirable outcomes in the criminal justice system. For example, the SAP Guidelines for Reduction in Sentences for Guilty Pleas provide a reference point that both the prosecution and defence may rely on in their submissions when proposing sentencing durations. As a general principle, the earlier the accused person decides to plead guilty, the greater the chance of a potential reduction in sentence.

The guidelines encourage victims who wish to plead guilty to do so as early as possible. This grants families and victims closure, whilst sparing them from the often stressful process of preparing for trial.

However, despite their non-binding nature, the guidelines may nevertheless indirectly pressure accused persons to plead guilty prematurely, before they have had time to reflect on their conduct. This can lead accused persons to plead guilty before fully considering their case, risking unfair outcomes and undermining the integrity of justice. Indeed, commentators have often expressed worries over systems of guilty pleas incentivised by sentence discounts. For example, reflecting on the United Kingdom’s system, Richard Nobles and David Schiff have argued that such a system risks sacrificing “a commitment to the truth of the conviction or the avoidance of wrongful convictions”.

Comparing SAP Guidelines with Judicial Precedents

At the same time, the non-binding nature of the SAP guidelines may also be a weakness (notwithstanding the strengths pointed out above). In Singapore, previous decisions made by judges often guide sentencing ranges through reference to past cases of a similar nature. These precedents are binding on lower courts and may be analogised or distinguished when courts are faced with novel factual circumstances.

In contrast, as noted, SAP guidelines are expressly non-binding. In turn, it could be argued that the SAP may, in practice, be of limited impact. This is particularly so in conventional cases where established sentencing norms already exist. Since the SAP does not displace judicial discretion and decision-making, its guidelines may be sidelined.

Conclusion

As Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon stated, moves have been taken in attempts to prevent sentencing from being a “lottery of justice”. The SAP promotes consistency by applying clearer sentencing benchmarks. Yet as its guidelines are not binding, there are inherent limits as to the SAP’s role in shaping judicial outcomes. Moreover, issues with the surmounting pressure to plead guilty prematurely may also risk significant injustice.

That said, the spirit behind the SAP’s establishment is less controversial. By aiming to promote consistency in sentencing, the SAP contributes to strengthening public confidence in the legal system. One might therefore expect the SAP to continue to play a pivotal role in the years ahead.

This Policy Explainer was written by members of MAJU. MAJU is a ground-up, fully youth-led organisation dedicated to empowering Singaporean youths in policy discourse and co-creation.

By promoting constructive dialogue and serving as a bridge between youths and the Government, we hope to drive the keMAJUan (progress!) of Singapore.