Affray Lawyers in Adelaide
Facing an affray charge in South Australia can be overwhelming. Early intervention by an experienced defence lawyer may significantly impact the outcome of your case.
Lawyers for Affray Charges
Affray is the crime of using or threatening unlawful violence that would cause a person of reasonable firmness at the scene to fear for their personal safety. It often involves a public fight or brawl and can be committed by one or more people. Affray charges are taken very seriously in South Australia and a conviction may result in a term of imprisonment, affect your employment, prevent you from travelling overseas and significantly limit future opportunities.
Our criminal lawyers in Adelaide have a proven track record of securing charge withdrawals, without conviction bonds, no conviction orders, and acquittals for affray charges.
Book a same-day free 30-minute consultation or call (08) 7094 2021 now to speak with a criminal defence lawyer for a free no-obligation case consultation or second opinion.
What is Affray?
Affray is a criminal offence that involves the use of or threat of violence towards another person in a public place, causing any person present at the scene to fear for their personal safety.
Unlike assault, where the focus is often on harm directed at a particular individual, affray concerns broader public order. It can involve group altercations, brawls, or any situation where violence or threats create a serious disturbance.
It is an offence against public order and tranquility under section 83C of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) and may be committed in a private or public place.
Elements of Affray
- The use or threat of violence by the accused;
- The conduct must be such that a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene would fear for their personal safety; and
- The offence occurred in a public place or private place.
These elements must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt for a conviction of affray. If the prosecution cannot prove each of these elements, the defendant must be acquitted.
What The Prosecution Needs to Prove
From brandishing objects to aggressive posturing and prolonged verbal threats, affray hinges on whether the conduct, in the eyes of a bystander, creates a fearful disturbance of public order.
The prosecution must prove the accused voluntarily:
- Used or threatened to use violence, against a person;
- Indented to use violence or threaten violence, or was aware that the conduct may be violent or threatening;
- The violence or threat to use violence was unlawful;
- The conduct would have caused a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for their personal safety.
Penalty for Affray
| Basic Offence | Aggravated Offence |
|---|---|
| 3 Years | 5 Years |
Aggravated Affray
While the offence of affray can be committed by one person only, it is ordinarily committed in company and hence charged with the aggravating circumstance of offending in company.
- deliberately and systematically inflicted severe pain on the victim;
- used, or threatened to use, an offensive weapon;
- committed the offence against a police or prison officer;
- tried to dissuade a victim from participating in legal proceedings;
- knew the victim was under 12 years of age;
- knew the victim was over 60 years of age;
- committed the offence against a former spouse/partner;
- committed the offence against your child or a child of your former spouse/partner;
- committed the offence in company with another person;
- abused a position of trust or authority;
- committed the offence against a disabled person;
- committed the offence against a person who was vulnerable because of their employment; or
- committed the offence in contravention of a court order (e.g., a bail agreement or restraining order).
Defences for Affray
Self Defence
Self-defence is a common legal defence that can be raised in response to a charge of affray. The principles of self-defence are outlined in Section 15 of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA). The key elements of self-defence are:
- The accused genuinely believed that their conduct was necessary and reasonable for a defensive purpose.
- The conduct was, in the circumstances as the accused genuinely believed them to be, reasonably proportionate to the threat that the accused genuinely believed to exist.
In the context of affray, self-defence could be raised if the accused used or threatened violence because they genuinely believed it was necessary to protect themselves or another person from an immediate threat of harm, and their response was proportionate to the threat they perceived.
For example, consider a scenario where a person is charged with affray for using violence in a public place. If that person was initially attacked or threatened by another individual and they responded with force to protect themselves, they could potentially raise self-defence as a defence to the charge of affray.
The key would be whether their response was proportionate to the threat they faced. If they used excessive force that was not proportionate to the threat (for example, if they severely injured the other person when a less violent response would have sufficed to protect themselves), then their claim of self-defence may not be successful.
Duress
Duress is a defence that can be raised in response to a charge of affray. The principles of duress are outlined in the case law and legislation of South Australia. The key elements of duress are:
- The accused was threatened with serious bodily harm or death.
- The accused reasonably believed that carrying out the offence was the only way to avoid the threatened harm.
- The threat must be of such gravity that it might well have caused a reasonable person, sharing the same characteristics and in the same circumstances as the accused, to act in the same way.
In the context of affray, duress could be raised if the accused used or threatened violence because they were forced to do so under threat of harm. The threat must be immediate and sufficiently serious to cause a reasonable person to succumb to it.
For example, consider a scenario where a person is charged with affray for participating in a violent incident in a public place. If that person was threatened by another individual with serious harm or death unless they participated in the violence, they could potentially raise duress as a defence to the charge of affray. The key would be whether their response was proportionate to the threat they faced and whether a reasonable person in the same situation would have acted similarly.
Necessity
Necessity is a defence that can be raised in response to a charge of affray. The principles of necessity are outlined in the case law and legislation of South Australia. The key elements of necessity are:
- The accused must show an imminent danger to person or property.
- The accused must have an honest belief on reasonable grounds of the necessity to act for the preservation of person and/or property.
- The acts done to avoid the imminent danger must not be out of proportion to the danger to be avoided.
In the context of affray, necessity could be raised if the accused used or threatened violence because they believed it was necessary to avoid an imminent danger. The response must be proportionate to the threat they perceived.
For example, consider a scenario where a person is charged with affray for participating in a violent incident in a public place. If that person was in a situation where they believed on reasonable grounds that they were in imminent danger (for example, they were surrounded by a violent mob), and they used or threatened violence as a means to escape from that danger, they could potentially raise necessity as a defence to the charge of affray. The key would be whether their response was proportionate to the threat they faced.
Lack of Intent
Lack of intent is a defence that can be raised in response to a charge of affray.
The key element of this defence is that the accused did not intend to use or threaten violence, or did not intend to cause a person of reasonable firmness present at the scene to fear for their personal safety. The prosecution must prove intent beyond reasonable doubt .
In the context of affray, lack of intent could be raised if the accused was involved in a situation where violence occurred, but they did not themselves use or threaten violence, or did not intend to cause fear.
For example, consider a scenario where a person is charged with affray for being involved in a violent incident in a public place. If that person was present during the incident but did not themselves use or threaten violence, and did not intend to cause fear, they could potentially raise lack of intent as a defence to the charge of affray. The key would be whether they intended to use or threaten violence, or to cause fear.
Another example could be a situation where a person gets involved in a heated argument in a public place. If the argument remains verbal, with no physical violence or threat thereof from the person, and they did not intend to cause fear, they could argue lack of intent if charged with affray.
Mental Impairment
Mental impairment is a defence that can be raised in response to a charge of affray. The principles of mental impairment are outlined in the case law and legislation of South Australia. The key elements of mental impairment are:
- The accused was suffering from a mental impairment at the time of the offence.
- The mental impairment affected their ability to understand what they were doing, or to know that what they were doing was wrong, or they were unable to control their conduct.
In the context of affray, mental impairment could be raised if the accused used or threatened violence because they were suffering from a mental impairment that affected their understanding or control of their actions.
For example, consider a scenario where a person is charged with affray for participating in a violent incident in a public place. If that person was suffering from a mental impairment at the time of the incident, such as a psychotic disorder, and this impairment affected their understanding of their actions or their ability to control their actions, they could potentially raise mental impairment as a defence to the charge of affray. The key would be whether their mental impairment affected their understanding or control of their actions.
Another example could be a situation where a person with a diagnosed mental illness, such as schizophrenia, gets involved in a violent incident in a public place. If their mental illness was active at the time of the incident and affected their understanding of their actions or their ability to control their actions, they could potentially raise mental impairment as a defence.
Automatism
The key elements of automatism are:
- The accused acted without conscious control or awareness.
- The state of automatism was not self-induced, for example, by voluntary intoxication.
In the context of affray, automatism could be raised if the accused used or threatened violence while in a state of automatism, meaning they were not consciously controlling their actions at the time.
For example, consider a scenario where a person is charged with affray for participating in a violent incident in a public place. If that person was in a state of automatism at the time of the incident, such as sleepwalking or due to a medical condition like epilepsy, and they used or threatened violence while in that state, they could potentially raise automatism as a defence to the charge of affray. The key would be whether they were acting without conscious control or awareness, and whether the state of automatism was not self-induced .
Another example could be a situation where a person with a diagnosed mental illness, such as schizophrenia, gets involved in a violent incident in a public place. If their mental illness caused a dissociative state at the time of the incident and they acted without conscious control or awareness, they could potentially raise automatism as a defence.
How Talon Legal Can Help
Talon Legal is committed to providing tailored defence strategies for individuals facing affray charges in South Australia. We offer:
- Expertise in South Australian criminal law and court procedures.
- Comprehensive legal advice on available defences.
- Skilled negotiation and advocacy to seek a reduction in penalties where possible.
- Personalised support, ensuring you fully understand each stage of the legal process.
By combining meticulous research with a practical, client-focused approach, we ensure your voice is heard and your rights are protected at every step.
Whether we negotiate with the prosecution for a more favourable outcome or prepare a compelling defence for court, our goal remains the same – to secure the best possible result for you and your family.
Serving All of Adelaide & Beyond
Talon Legal regularly appears in all South Australian courts and surrounding jurisdictions, including:
Book a Free 30 Minute Consultation
Book a free initial consultation with our experienced criminal defence lawyers in Adelaide. We will review the circumstances of your case, discuss possible strategies, and outline the next steps in a confidential setting.
Speak with an experienced criminal lawyer
Contact Talon Legal today to discuss your case for free and without obligation:
- Call now (08) 7094 2021 or book your free case review online.
- Understand non-conviction outcomes: Section 24 Sentencing Act guide.
- Learn more about assault law in SA: Assault & Violence Offences hub.
Related Insights
Assault Charge Against Security Guard Withdrawn | Case Study
Assault Charge Dropped A security guard was charged with assault after being attacked by a drunk patron. Talon Legal secured an early charge withdrawal and…
How Can I Avoid a Conviction Being Recorded?
Penalty Without Conviction In South Australia, courts have discretion to impose a penalty or sentence without recording a conviction pursuant to Section 24 of the Sentencing…
Without Conviction for Assault Cause Harm | Case Study
No Conviction for Assault Cause Harm A contested assault resolved without conviction after raising defensive context and targeted submissions under section 24 of the Sentencing Act….
Section 97 Good Behaviour Bond Without Conviction
Without Conviction Good Behaviour Bonds Explained Learn how to avoid a recorded conviction and criminal record with a Section 97 Good Behaviour Bond without conviction…
Aggravated Assault Charge Withdrawn | Case Study
Aggravated Assault Charge Withdrawn Aggravated assault charges withdrawn by the Prosecution after forensic review of the evidence and negotiations. Background Our client was charged with…
Aggravated Assault & Domestic Violence – Case Study
Overview Talon Legal represented an individual falsely accused of domestic violence and attempted harm stemming from a disputed incident with a former partner. The allegations…
Aggravated Circumstances & Offences in South Australia
What Are Aggravated Circumstances? Aggravated circumstances are defined in section 5AA of the Criminal Law Consolidation Act 1935 (SA) and attract harsher penalties than basic…