What is Judicial Mercy?

Last updated on March 18, 2026

In August 2025, property tycoon Ong Beng Seng made headlines when he was fined $30,000 for abetting the obstruction of justice in a case involving former Transport Minister S Iswaran. While the offence could have carried a jail term, he was spared imprisonment. Why? Because the court exercised judicial mercy owing to Mr Ong’s bone marrow cancer.

If you or a loved one is facing criminal charges and suffering from a serious medical condition, you might wonder if this applies to you. Can a court impose a more lenient sentence because of an offender’s health?

This article will discuss:

What is Judicial Mercy?

Judicial mercy is a rare discretionary power that Singapore courts may exercise to alleviate the harshness of punishments in light of an offender’s exceptionally poor health. They may impose a substantially more lenient sentence than the usual penalty, given these exceptional mitigating circumstances. For example:

A Fine: Replacing a mandatory jail term.
A Nominal Period of Imprisonment: A very short sentence (e.g. one day) to satisfy the symbolic need for a custodial sentence while acknowledging the offender’s poor health.
The Statutory Minimum: Imposing the lowest possible sentence allowed by law for the specific offence.

Unlike other sentencing rules found in written law (statutes), judicial mercy is a judicial doctrine. This means it was created by judges over time to ensure that justice remains humane.

When is Judicial Mercy Exercised?

Courts in Singapore are careful to exercise this power. The threshold is extremely high, and it is not enough to simply be old or sick. Generally, judicial mercy has been exercised in two specific situations:

Terminal Illness: The offender is suffering from an illness that is in its final stages, where imprisonment would merely be a place to wait for death.
Imprisonment carrying high risk of endangering life: The offender is so ill that sending them to prison would carry a high risk of killing them.

Below are two examples of a successful and unsuccessful application of judicial mercy:

Successful Judicial Mercy: Mr Ong Beng Seng was charged in August 2025 with abetting former Transport Minister S Iswaran in the obstruction of justice. However, Mr Ong suffered from bone marrow cancer, which damaged his skeletal system and severely compromised his immune system. The court found the prison environment would expose him to infections that his body could not fight, creating a very high risk of death. Therefore, instead of weeks in jail, he paid a $30,000 fine.

Unsuccessful Judicial Mercy: Contrast this with the case of Mr Lim Oon Kuin, who was charged in a cheating case involving at least S$150 million. His lawyers argued Mr Lim’s age and frailty warranted the exercise of judicial mercy because he was 83 years old, had anxiety, depression, insomnia, an enlarged prostate, asthma, coronary artery disease and cerebral vascular disease with cognitive impairment and sensorineural hearing loss. Nonetheless, the court decided that his condition could be managed by prison authorities and did not meet the high threshold of terminal illness or high risk of endangering life.

The courts rigorously guard this doctrine to prevent abuse, ensuring it does not become a routine loophole for escaping punishment. For example, if offenders could easily use non-life-threatening illnesses or standard medical reports to avoid jail, it would undermine public justice. Thus, judicial mercy is reserved strictly for truly exceptional, life-threatening circumstances.

At its core, the judge performs a meticulous balancing exercise. They must weigh the public interest in punishing and deterring crime against humanitarian considerations, ensuring that the sentence does not unduly endanger the life of a gravely ill offender.

How is Judicial Mercy Invoked?

In practice, the exercise of judicial mercy typically occurs during sentencing proceedings. The defence counsel can make submissions of the accused’s medical records to urge the court to consider judicial mercy.

Additionally, it is possible for both the defence and prosecution to appeal a judicial mercy decision.

An example of a successful appeal was in the case of VDZ v VEA. In this case, a mother was initially sentenced to one week in jail for contempt of court. However, she successfully appealed for judicial mercy due to the worsening of her Stage 4 breast cancer. Her condition caused a critically low blood count, placing her at risk of infection and sudden death. The appellate court accepted her oncologist’s letter and ruled that imprisonment would be inhumane, replacing the jail term with a $5,000 fine.

However, appeals against judicial mercy outcomes are extremely rare, as seen in the cases of Lim Oon Kuin, mentioned above, and Chew Soo Chun, discussed in the next section

How is Judicial Mercy Different From Mitigation?

During a plea of mitigation, the defence presents personal and circumstantial factors that might justify a lighter sentence. These may include ill health, age, lack of a prior criminal record, or cooperation with authorities. This process operates within the standard sentencing framework to ensure the punishment fits the offender’s wrongdoing.

In contrast, judicial mercy goes beyond ordinary mitigation. It balances sentencing against humanitarian considerations, potentially resulting in a punishment substantially lighter than the standard range to mitigate against the offender’s extreme ill health.

For instance, in Chew Soo Chun v Public Prosecutor, the accused was convicted of cheating and falsifying accounts. The court declined to exercise judicial mercy, ruling that his ill health (i.e., medical conditions such as depression and claustrophobia, as well as several physical ailments, such as hypertension and prostate enlargement) did not meet the exceptionally high threshold required to bypass a jail sentence entirely. Similar to the case of Mr Lim Oon Kuin, prison authorities confirmed that they would be able to manage Chew’s conditions. However, the court accepted Chew’s medical conditions as a valid mitigating factor in his mitigation plea. It acknowledged that imprisonment would be significantly harder for him than for a healthy person, and the judge reduced his sentence from 38 months to 32 months.

For a more detailed discussion on mitigating factors, you may refer to our other article on Mitigating Factors in Criminal Case. For information on mitigation pleas, you may refer to our article on Mitigation Plea: How to Plead for Leniency in Court in Singapore.

How is Judicial Mercy Different From Clemency?

While judicial mercy is a discretionary power exercised by the courts, clemency is a constitutional power exercised by the President of Singapore, acting on the advice of the Cabinet.

Historically, clemency in Singapore has been reserved almost exclusively for capital offenders, such as murderers or drug traffickers facing the death penalty. In contrast, judicial mercy can apply to any criminal proceeding, provided the high medical threshold is met.

The outcomes are also different:

Judicial mercy typically changes the type of sentence entirely. For example, a court may set aside a mandatory jail term and impose a fine instead, as the offender would otherwise suffer greater hardship while serving his prison term because of his ill health.
Clemency typically reduces the severity of an existing sentence, and in rare instances, a full pardon. For example, a death sentence may be reduced to life imprisonment.

For a discussion on Presidential Clemency, you may refer to our other article on Presidential Clemency in Singapore.

—

To conclude, judicial mercy is a rare discretionary power that allows Singapore courts to show humanity in truly exceptional cases. Judicial mercy allows a judge to set aside the usual punishment because of the offender’s personal circumstances, such as a terminal illness, that would mitigate against the offender’s extreme ill health.

However, readers must be aware that the threshold for this is incredibly high. It is not guaranteed, and in the vast majority of cases, the courts would find that an offender’s medical needs can be adequately managed by the prison authorities.

What should you do next? If you or your loved one has been charged with a criminal offence and believes your medical condition is severe enough to warrant judicial mercy, you may wish to seek further advice from a criminal lawyer. A criminal lawyer can assess your situation and advise you on the most suitable course of action to take.