You, on 23 June 2023, at or about 2.53am, at 8 Bayfront Avenue, Marina Bay Sands, Singapore, voluntarily caused hurt to one Davidov Aharon (“Davidov”), where the hurt you intended to cause was not grievous, but the hurt which you actually caused was grievous, by punching Davidov at the area near his right eye, which caused him to suffer a right orbital floor fracture and right frontal sinus fracture, and you have thereby committed an offence under Section 323A of the Penal Code 1871.

1  The accused is Chan Jun Hong (T02XXXXXX), a 22-year-old Singaporean male.

2  The victim is Davidov Aharon, a 58-year-old male.

3  On the night of 22 June 2023, the accused went drinking at Sim Lim Tower with his friends. After drinking, the accused and one of his friends, one Jian Wei, decided to go to the Casino (“the Casino”) at Marina Bay Sands (“MBS”) located 8 Bayfront Avenue, Singapore 018955.

4  The accused and Jian Wei were at the Casino, on 23 June 2023, from 2am to about 2.38am. At 2.38am, the accused and Jian Wei sought to leave MBS by making their way to the taxi stand outside the Casino. As he was walking through a set of glass doors leading to the taxi stand, the accused got into a short physical dispute with an unknown Sikh male (“A1”) who was on his way to the Casino. This is shown in the attached footage marked “Footage1”. The accused and A1 pushed and scolded each other during this dispute. However, the pair were quickly split up by their respective groups of friends.

5  Rather than leave MBS, the accused decided to wait around the vicinity, for when A1 came through the same glass doors to leave the Casino. The accused wanted to retaliate against A1 for their earlier dispute. He waited until about 2.53am on 23 June 2023. This is shown in the attached footage marked “Footage 2”.

6  At about 2.53am, the victim exited the Casino and made his way to the taxi stand of MBS. The accused saw the victim and in his drunken state, mistook the victim for A1. As the victim walked through the glass doors leading from the Casino to the taxi stand, the accused shouted at the victim and swung a punch at his face. The accused did so intending to cause hurt to the victim.

7  The accused’s punch landed on the victim’s face, near his right eye. This caused the victim to suffer several injuries, including fractures to his right orbital floor and his right frontal sinus. The details of the injuries the accused caused to the victim are contained in the attached medical report marked “28 May Medical Report”, and the clarificatory reports marked “Clarificatory Reports”. A photo of the injury, showing the bruised area where the victim was punched, is also attached and marked “Image 1”. The victim was given hospitalisation leave of 7 days, as shown in the attached medical report marked “30 May Medical Report”.

8  The accused tried to hit the victim a second time, but was held back first by Jian Wei, and subsequently restrained by security officers at the scene. The victim was taken to the Emergency Department at Singapore General Hospital for treatment.

9  When the accused was interviewed by police on 11 July 2023, he admitted that he was heavily intoxicated at the time he attacked the victim. He claimed that after the dispute with A1, the next thing he remembered was being restrained by the security officers and subsequently being informed that he had hit the wrong person.

10  On 23 June 2023, at about 2.53am, the accused had thus voluntarily caused hurt to the victim, where the hurt he intended to cause was not grievous, but the hurt which he actually caused was grievous, by punching the victim at the area near his right eye, which caused the victim to suffer an acute displaced right orbital floor fracture and right nasal bone fractures, among other injuries, and he has thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 323A of the Penal Code 1871.

1 National Service appears to have done some good for the respondent, Mr Chan Jun Hong, in terms of maturity and discipline. The Prosecution acknowledged this when it altered its sentencing position downwards by two weeks “in recognition of the respondent’s rehabilitative progress” (Prosecution’s written submissions at [13]).

2 However, despite the progress, there are still some conflicting signals about Mr Chan’s honesty. These would have a bearing on whether he had come to terms with what he had done and whether he is truly remorseful about the offence. They also affect the question whether he is someone with an extremely strong propensity for reform.

3 The first conflicting signal was discussed by the District Judge (“DJ”) in his grounds of decision: Public Prosecutor v Chan Jun Hong [2026] SGDC 25 at [46]. Mr Chan was not completely truthful when he gave an account of the events in the offence to the probation officer. He was waiting for the intended victim for 15 minutes because he wanted to exact vengeance, not to demand an apology. It was also not true that he “immediately backed off and apologised after he realised that he had punched the victim” as stated in the probation report. His account to the probation officer contradicted what he had admitted to in the SOF without qualification. It was clear that he was attempting to minimise the seriousness of the offence, committed in a public place while intoxicated.

4 The second conflicting signal was his apparent lack of candour in his communications with 3SG Raphael Ong, whom we commend for his dedication to duty and care for the men under his charge. On 2 February 2025, when 3SG Raphael Ong spoke to Mr Chan over the phone, Mr Chan mentioned that “he has kept his promise to me not to drink again. During the festive period, he has made it a point not to partake in drinking ….”.

5 This claim does not sit well with the probation report dated 17 April 2025 which was called for by the DJ on 7 March 2025. In that report, Mr Chan was reported to have stated that after the commission of the offence, he reduced his drinking significantly and drank only during special occasions such as Chinese New Year or family members’ birthday celebrations and that he consumed a maximum of 2 cans of beer each time. It was also reported that his parents advised him to reduce his alcohol consumption and to drink in moderate amounts to prevent another incident like the offence in issue and that he was receptive.

6 It was therefore not true that Mr Chan had kept his promise to 3SG Raphael Ong not to drink again and that during the festive period, he made it a point not to partake in drinking alcohol. Alcohol was the apparent catalyst for the offence outside the Marina Bay Sands Resort on 23 June 2023 at about 2.53am. However, Mr Chan does not appear to have come to terms with how to deal with his drinking habit.

7 I am therefore not satisfied that Mr Chan has shown an extremely strong propensity for reform.

8 In any event, the offence that was committed in this case does not justify the replacement of deterrence by rehabilitation as the central sentencing consideration. It was a totally unprovoked attack on an innocent 58-year-old man who happened to walk out of the MBS complex that early morning. Mr Chan was waiting for some 15 minutes at that location in order to have his revenge for a relatively minor incident for which he was not entirely without fault. As his counsel said in his written submissions (at [3]), he “accidentally bumped into a stranger entering the complex” and was pushed with much force. The offence was therefore clearly not something committed by a young man impulsively. He had the time to think and to cool down. He probably did not because he was “heavily intoxicated” as he admitted to the police on 11 July 2023 (SOF at [9]).

9 On this point about intoxication, I disagree with the Prosecution’s written submissions at [80] where the Prosecution stated that Mr Chan’s intoxication was a neutral factor because there was no evidence that he had reason to believe he would turn violent when drunk. This argument runs contrary to case law which held that voluntary intoxication leading to an offence while under its influence is not only not a mitigating factor, it is instead an aggravating one.

10 I therefore allow the Prosecution’s appeal against the order of probation. The order is set aside.

11 On the facts here, I would have imposed 4 months’ imprisonment had the matter proceeded to trial and resulted in a conviction. On account of Mr Chan’s early plea of guilt and his progress during National Service, I reduce the imprisonment term to two months. This is to take effect today unless there are reasons for postponement of commencement of sentence.