Public Prosecutor v Goh Jun Hao Jeremy: Affray Sentencing Appeal - Nasal Fracture & Public Order

The Public Prosecutor appealed against the sentence of a fine imposed on Goh Jun Hao Jeremy for an affray charge. The High Court, presided over by See Kee Oon J, allowed the appeal, finding that the custodial threshold had been crossed. The incident occurred outside Club V on 27 December 2015, where Goh Jun Hao Jeremy punched and kicked Heng Weijie Jonathan, causing a nasal bone fracture. The court determined that the level of harm and culpability warranted a custodial sentence, and sentenced Goh Jun Hao Jeremy to two weeks' imprisonment.

1. Case Overview

1.1 Court

High Court of Singapore

1.2 Outcome

Appeal Allowed

1.3 Case Type

Criminal

1.4 Judgment Type

Grounds of Decision

1.5 Jurisdiction

Singapore

1.6 Description

Appeal against a fine for affray. The High Court allowed the appeal, finding the custodial threshold crossed due to the nasal fracture and culpability.

1.7 Decision Date

2. Parties and Outcomes

Party NameRoleTypeOutcomeOutcome TypeCounsels
Public ProsecutorAppellantGovernment AgencyAppeal AllowedWon
Sarah Shi of Attorney-General’s Chambers
Goh Jun Hao JeremyRespondentIndividualCustodial Sentence ImposedLost

3. Judges

Judge NameTitleDelivered Judgment
See Kee OonJudgeYes

4. Counsels

Counsel NameOrganization
Sarah ShiAttorney-General’s Chambers
Josephus TanInvictus Law Corporation
Cory Wong Guo YeanInvictus Law Corporation

4. Facts

  1. Goh Jun Hao Jeremy and Yap En Hao were staring at Heng Weijie Jonathan's female friends outside Club V.
  2. Heng approached Goh and Yap to ask them to stop staring.
  3. Goh shouted in reply to Heng.
  4. As Heng and his friends were walking away, Goh ran up to Heng, punched his face, and kicked him.
  5. Heng retaliated by punching Goh, resulting in an affray.
  6. Heng sustained a nasal bone fracture and other minor injuries.
  7. Goh had two prior probation terms for similar offences.

5. Formal Citations

  1. Public Prosecutor v Goh Jun Hao Jeremy, Magistrate’s Appeal No 9299 of 2017, [2018] SGHC 68

6. Timeline

DateEvent
Affray occurred outside Club V
Magistrate’s Appeal No 9299 of 2017 filed
Hearing held
Hearing held
Appeal allowed

7. Legal Issues

  1. Whether the custodial threshold had been crossed for the offence of affray
    • Outcome: The court held that the custodial threshold had been crossed.
    • Category: Substantive
    • Related Cases:
      • [2017] SGMC 59
      • [2016] SGMC 47

8. Remedies Sought

  1. Appeal against sentence

9. Cause of Actions

  • Affray

10. Practice Areas

  • Criminal Law
  • Appeals

11. Industries

  • No industries specified

12. Cited Cases

Case NameCourtAffirmedCitationJurisdictionSignificance
Public Prosecutor v Jeremy Goh Jun HaoDistrict CourtYes[2017] SGMC 59SingaporeCited as the District Judge's grounds of decision in the proceedings below.
Tommy Koh Leng Theng v Public ProsecutorState CourtsYes[2016] SGMC 47SingaporeCited by the respondent to argue that the custodial threshold was not crossed.
Lim Ying Ying Luciana v Public ProsecutorHigh CourtYes[2016] 4 SLR 1220SingaporeCited for the principal parameters in evaluating the seriousness of a crime: harm and culpability.
Public Prosecutor v Koh Thiam HuatHigh CourtYes[2017] 4 SLR 1099SingaporeCited for the principal parameters in evaluating the seriousness of a crime: harm and culpability.

13. Applicable Rules

Rule Name
No applicable rules

14. Applicable Statutes

Statute NameJurisdiction
Penal Code (Cap 224, 2008 Rev Ed) s 267BSingapore
Penal Code s 320(g)Singapore

15. Key Terms and Keywords

15.1 Key Terms

  • Affray
  • Custodial threshold
  • Nasal bone fracture
  • Public order
  • Specific deterrence
  • Culpability
  • Harm
  • Sentencing precedents

15.2 Keywords

  • Affray
  • Sentencing
  • Criminal Law
  • Singapore
  • Appeal
  • Custodial Sentence

17. Areas of Law

Area NameRelevance Score
Criminal Law95
Affray95
Sentencing90
Criminal Procedure90

16. Subjects

  • Criminal Law
  • Sentencing
  • Affray