Section 267A of the Penal Code
Where 2 or more persons disturb the public peace by fighting in a public place, they are said to “commit an affray”.
The offence of affray usually consists of a scuffle or tussle between 2 or more persons with the consequences of affecting public peace and tranquillity.
The constant exchange of tugging of shirts and shoving of shoulders is effectively an offence of affray. If found committing affray, you are subjected to arrest without warrant and may be charged under Section 267A of the Penal Code 1871 (“the Penal Code”).
Penalties for Affray
Section 267B of the Penal Code sets out the penalties for Affray:
Whoever commits an affray shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to $5,000, or with both.
Affray usually arises when minor altercations escalate spontaneously into scuffles. Most of the time, the injuries caused are not very serious.
In the case of Public Prosecutor v Goh Jun Hao Jeremy [2018] 4 SLR 1438 (“Jeremy Goh”), the accused was involved an altercation with other men outside a nightspot. The co-offender, Heng, had approached the accused, Goh, and asked him to stop staring at Heng’s female friends. The accused shouted in reply.
As Heng and his friends were walking away, Goh ran up to Heng, punched him in the face and kicked him. Heng punched Goh in retaliation. Both parties engaged in an affray subsequently. Goh caused Heng to suffer a nasal bone fracture and other minor injuries. He pleaded guilty to a charge of affray under s267B of the Penal Code and was sentenced to two weeks’ imprisonment.
In arriving at the sentence in Jeremy Goh, the High Court noted that the two main considerations that the court will have regard to in calibrating the appropriate sentence were:
- The harm caused by the offence; and
- The accused’s culpability.
The primary factors relating to the harm caused would be:
- The extent of injury caused to the co-offender; and
- The extent of disruption caused to public order.
Factors relating to the offender’s culpability would include:
- The manner of attack;
- The extent of injury that could be traced to the accused where multiple accused persons inflicted injuries on the same co-offender;
- Whether the accused was the instigator; and
- Whether weapons were used.
The court will also consider other mitigating and aggravating factors, such as the accused’s relevant antecedents (whether the accused has committed similar offences before), and remorse.
Where a low level of harm is caused and the accused has a low level of culpability, a fine will likely be imposed. However, where there is a higher level of harm and culpability, a custodial sentence would be warranted.
In Jeremy Goh, the High Court found that there was at least moderate to high harm caused, as the accused had caused Heng to suffer a nasal bone fracture. The accused’s culpability was also significant, as he had taken “needless offence to a perceived provocation, ran up to Heng and started the affray even though Heng was already leaving the scene with his friends”.
A notable aggravating factor was that the accused had previous related antecedents, including an unlawful assembly offence which had been committed in similar circumstances a few years prior.
The High Court noted that this showed that he had not been rehabilitated, and was not deterred from reoffending. The Court considered that the accused had pleaded guilty, expressed remorse, and was voluntarily undergoing counselling, these were all mitigating factors.
After considering all of the above factors, the High Court ultimately held that a custodial sentence was warranted, and sentenced the accused to two weeks’ imprisonment.
