Civil rights activist Jolovan Wham was fined $3,200 yesterday for organising a public assembly without a permit in 2016 and for refusing to sign a statement he gave to the police on the case.

Wham's lawyer said the social worker, 39, will serve the default sentence of 16 days' jail instead of paying the fine. He also indicated that Wham would be appealing against the judge's decisions. Wham is now out on $8,000 bail.

In its submissions, the prosecutionsaid there was an "absolute dearth of valid mitigating factors" in Wham's case.

It stated: "The accused has portrayed an entire lack of remorse, and had claimed trial to the two charges despite the clear evidence against him. It must be emphasised that the accused's refusal to comply with the police's directions constitutes a wilful disregard for the law."

Wham was found guilty of the offences last month after a trial that began in October last year.

One of them was to organise an event called "Civil Disobedience and Social Movements" without a permit at an indoor venue on Nov 26, 2016. It featured local and foreign speakers like Hong Kong pro-democracy activist Joshua Wong, who spoke via a video call.

Despite being advised by the police to apply for a permit before the event, Wham did not do so. Police investigations started after the event, and Wham's statement was recorded about a month later.

When an investigating officer took his statement, Wham confirmed it to be true and correct but refused to sign it, saying he would do so only if he was given a copy.

Despite being told that refusing to sign it was an offence, Wham persisted.

The officer then recorded two cautioned statements from Wham, who signed them after being told he would receive copies.

A witness statement is an accused's account of the facts, while a cautioned statement officially sets out and explains charges to the accused, who will then be allowed to respond to it.

According to the law, the accused must be given copies of the cautioned statements, but there is no rule requiring them to be given copies of witness statements.

In Wham's mitigation, his lawyer Eugene Thuraisingam asked the court to consider the legislative intention of the Public Order Act, which the first charge came under. He said the particular law was to address the threat of violence and anti-social behaviour in society.

He said the event did not cause any disturbance or danger to public order or safety, and no member of the public who was not already a "willing and consenting" participant was even aware of the event.

Mr Thuraisingam also said the sentencing was an opportunity for the courts to find an appropriate balance between "free political expression" and "social order or security". He added: "An overly harsh sentence in this present case would have a chilling effect on public discourse and constructive public discussion in Singapore."

Wham also faces two pending sets of charges for organising other illegal assemblies and refusing to sign police statements.

In October, he was found guilty of contempt of court over a Facebook post alleging that Singapore's courts are not as independent as Malaysia's on cases with political implications. The case has been adjourned for sentencing.