SINGAPORE: After his six-year-old son told him that a man had scolded him at an indoor playground, a Singaporean man approached the other parent to find out what happened.
In an argument that followed, the Singaporean punched the other parent, resulting in several fractures to the victim's face, near his eye and nose.
Wong Chun Xiong, a 39-year-old Singaporean, was sentenced to nine months' jail on Thursday (Oct 9) and ordered to pay compensation of about S$408 (US$314) to the victim.
Wong had gone on trial over the case, but was convicted of one count of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, with a second charge of using insulting words taken into consideration.
Wong was with his family and two young children at an indoor children's playground called Bouncy Paradise on Sep 3, 2023.
While they were there, Wong's six-year-old son went to him and said that he had been scolded by an adult in the playground.
Wong then went with his son to approach the adult, a 56-year-old foreign man. The victim was sitting in a ball pit with one of his younger children.
Wong asked the victim why he had scolded his son. The victim responded that Wong's son had "hit onto his child".
Wong explained what led to his son accidentally falling onto the victim's daughter.
The two men began arguing, and the victim jumped out of the ball pit towards Wong and moved his head closer to him. Wong stepped backwards.
The pair were face-to-face with each other and continued talking, with Wong calling the victim a "f***ing foreigner" at one point.
Closed-circuit television footage of the incident showed the two men pushing and gesturing, before Wong threw a punch at the side of the victim's face.
On impact, the victim fell backwards to the ground and other adults intervened to stop the incident.
The victim suffered several fractures to his face, near his eye and nose.
At trial, Wong's defence lawyer, Ms Lolita Andrew, said her client was not contesting that the hurt charge was made out, but said his actions were covered by the right of private defence to absolve him of the charge.
Ms Andrew argued that Wong was reacting as any protective parent would when asking what his son had done.
His son said he was falsely accused of harming the victim's daughter.
Ms Andrew said her client's sole intention was to seek clarification from the victim on the events that unfolded and an apology if appropriate.
She claimed that her client had been provoked by the victim, pointing to how the victim had emerged "aggressively" from the ball pit to confront Wong, as opposed to negotiating or attempting to settle the matter amicably, as it was "in essence, a children's disagreement".
She said her client would have been satisfied with a simple apology and never intended for the matter to escalate to a physical altercation.
Ms Andrew said the victim went up to her client's face and yelled and screamed at him.
She added that her client "reacted impulsively" when the victim screamed at him: "You are a p***y*" and "Let's fight! Fight!"
She said her client repeatedly suggested going to the staff members to resolve the matter, but was "met with increasing aggression" from the victim.
She also said both her client and the victim were involved in the physical altercation, but that the victim had initiated it and was provocative.
Wong "acted instinctively to protect himself and his son" from the victim's hostile conduct, she said, calling her client a dedicated father with two young children.
District Judge Eugene Teo said the law does provide all individuals with the right of private defence, but it is exercisable only in limited circumstances.
"If those circumstances exist, then the actions taken in private defence must also pass the reasonableness standard and not cause more harm than is necessary," he said.
The judge said he had reviewed the CCTV footage numerous times, at normal speed and in slow motion, and noted the sequence of actions and the incident which led to the punch being thrown.
He said that this was not a case that would allow Wong to exercise the right of private defence against the victim in that manner.
This is even with the context of the dispute involving their children, the fact that words were exchanged in a dispute just before, and the fact that the victim was shown in footage moving towards and close to Wong to confront him and gesture against him.
The judge said the objective reasonable standard "demands restraint and sanctions violence limited to defence only when all other reasonable recourses are not available".
"Once the context of the incident is taken into account, it cannot be said that Mr Wong was in a location or situation which gave him no reasonable opportunity to seek recourse from the relevant authorities for the escalating situation," said Judge Teo.
He put it another way and agreed that Wong had shown a "measure of restraint" during the early part of the confrontation, but said it is telling that Wong is not being taken to task for his other physical acts against the victim earlier.
The judge said the punch, with its intensity, was "simply far in excess of what the objective reasonable standard would allow for in defence".
"This conclusion is reinforced when one takes into account their relative sizes and physicality," said the judge.
He said Wong remained "dominant" and was able to handle the situation up till that point, and the level of violence used was "simply excessive".
Judge Teo said that if he had been in Wong's shoes that day, he would have been "similarly troubled that something had upset my young son, and as a loving father, I would try to get to the bottom of it and see how to make it better".
"If there was cause for it, I may have even approached (the victim) to clarify the situation. I may have been further upset if my attempt was misconstrued and met with aggravation," said the judge.
He added that if he had allowed his reason to "leave me at that point" and his feelings to get the better of me instead and acted out physically, it may have assuaged his feelings then.
"But I would objectively recognise when my feelings have settled and my reason has returned that I would have to take responsibility for the consequences for my actions," said the judge.
He said he hoped Wong understood how the standard operates and what it inevitably results in for this case.
"That standard seeks to protect all from subjective acts of self-justified violence. It may be difficult for Mr Wong to really appreciate this because he is in his prime now," said Judge Teo.
"But the day will come when his youth and vitality leave him, and he may find himself in another similar interaction with a much younger man. By us constantly reinforcing and applying this same standard, that man will know he had better be prepared for the consequences if he chooses to lash out at Mr Wong. As such, the law will protect that version of Mr Wong too."
Deputy Public Prosecutor Clara Low sought 10 to 11 months' jail for Wong, while Ms Andrew sought less than seven months.
The judge allowed Wong to defer his sentence to a later date.
For voluntarily causing grievous hurt, he could have been jailed for up to 10 years and fined or caned.
Continue reading...
In an argument that followed, the Singaporean punched the other parent, resulting in several fractures to the victim's face, near his eye and nose.
Wong Chun Xiong, a 39-year-old Singaporean, was sentenced to nine months' jail on Thursday (Oct 9) and ordered to pay compensation of about S$408 (US$314) to the victim.
Wong had gone on trial over the case, but was convicted of one count of voluntarily causing grievous hurt, with a second charge of using insulting words taken into consideration.
WHAT HAPPENED
Wong was with his family and two young children at an indoor children's playground called Bouncy Paradise on Sep 3, 2023.
While they were there, Wong's six-year-old son went to him and said that he had been scolded by an adult in the playground.
Wong then went with his son to approach the adult, a 56-year-old foreign man. The victim was sitting in a ball pit with one of his younger children.
Wong asked the victim why he had scolded his son. The victim responded that Wong's son had "hit onto his child".
Wong explained what led to his son accidentally falling onto the victim's daughter.
The two men began arguing, and the victim jumped out of the ball pit towards Wong and moved his head closer to him. Wong stepped backwards.
The pair were face-to-face with each other and continued talking, with Wong calling the victim a "f***ing foreigner" at one point.
Closed-circuit television footage of the incident showed the two men pushing and gesturing, before Wong threw a punch at the side of the victim's face.
On impact, the victim fell backwards to the ground and other adults intervened to stop the incident.
The victim suffered several fractures to his face, near his eye and nose.
AT TRIAL
At trial, Wong's defence lawyer, Ms Lolita Andrew, said her client was not contesting that the hurt charge was made out, but said his actions were covered by the right of private defence to absolve him of the charge.
Ms Andrew argued that Wong was reacting as any protective parent would when asking what his son had done.
His son said he was falsely accused of harming the victim's daughter.
Ms Andrew said her client's sole intention was to seek clarification from the victim on the events that unfolded and an apology if appropriate.
She claimed that her client had been provoked by the victim, pointing to how the victim had emerged "aggressively" from the ball pit to confront Wong, as opposed to negotiating or attempting to settle the matter amicably, as it was "in essence, a children's disagreement".
She said her client would have been satisfied with a simple apology and never intended for the matter to escalate to a physical altercation.
Ms Andrew said the victim went up to her client's face and yelled and screamed at him.
She added that her client "reacted impulsively" when the victim screamed at him: "You are a p***y*" and "Let's fight! Fight!"
She said her client repeatedly suggested going to the staff members to resolve the matter, but was "met with increasing aggression" from the victim.
She also said both her client and the victim were involved in the physical altercation, but that the victim had initiated it and was provocative.
Wong "acted instinctively to protect himself and his son" from the victim's hostile conduct, she said, calling her client a dedicated father with two young children.
JUDGE'S FINDINGS
District Judge Eugene Teo said the law does provide all individuals with the right of private defence, but it is exercisable only in limited circumstances.
"If those circumstances exist, then the actions taken in private defence must also pass the reasonableness standard and not cause more harm than is necessary," he said.
The judge said he had reviewed the CCTV footage numerous times, at normal speed and in slow motion, and noted the sequence of actions and the incident which led to the punch being thrown.
He said that this was not a case that would allow Wong to exercise the right of private defence against the victim in that manner.
This is even with the context of the dispute involving their children, the fact that words were exchanged in a dispute just before, and the fact that the victim was shown in footage moving towards and close to Wong to confront him and gesture against him.
The judge said the objective reasonable standard "demands restraint and sanctions violence limited to defence only when all other reasonable recourses are not available".
"Once the context of the incident is taken into account, it cannot be said that Mr Wong was in a location or situation which gave him no reasonable opportunity to seek recourse from the relevant authorities for the escalating situation," said Judge Teo.
He put it another way and agreed that Wong had shown a "measure of restraint" during the early part of the confrontation, but said it is telling that Wong is not being taken to task for his other physical acts against the victim earlier.
The judge said the punch, with its intensity, was "simply far in excess of what the objective reasonable standard would allow for in defence".
"This conclusion is reinforced when one takes into account their relative sizes and physicality," said the judge.
He said Wong remained "dominant" and was able to handle the situation up till that point, and the level of violence used was "simply excessive".
Judge Teo said that if he had been in Wong's shoes that day, he would have been "similarly troubled that something had upset my young son, and as a loving father, I would try to get to the bottom of it and see how to make it better".
"If there was cause for it, I may have even approached (the victim) to clarify the situation. I may have been further upset if my attempt was misconstrued and met with aggravation," said the judge.
He added that if he had allowed his reason to "leave me at that point" and his feelings to get the better of me instead and acted out physically, it may have assuaged his feelings then.
"But I would objectively recognise when my feelings have settled and my reason has returned that I would have to take responsibility for the consequences for my actions," said the judge.
He said he hoped Wong understood how the standard operates and what it inevitably results in for this case.
"That standard seeks to protect all from subjective acts of self-justified violence. It may be difficult for Mr Wong to really appreciate this because he is in his prime now," said Judge Teo.
"But the day will come when his youth and vitality leave him, and he may find himself in another similar interaction with a much younger man. By us constantly reinforcing and applying this same standard, that man will know he had better be prepared for the consequences if he chooses to lash out at Mr Wong. As such, the law will protect that version of Mr Wong too."
Deputy Public Prosecutor Clara Low sought 10 to 11 months' jail for Wong, while Ms Andrew sought less than seven months.
The judge allowed Wong to defer his sentence to a later date.
For voluntarily causing grievous hurt, he could have been jailed for up to 10 years and fined or caned.
Continue reading...