Littering Offences: The Fines And Potential Jail Time

Oct 12, 2023

Littering

Littering is, unfortunately, a relatively common occurrence in Singapore. Littering is defined in Section 17 of the Environmental Public Health Act (“EPHA”), the relevant portions of which read as follows:

“(1) A person must not —

• deposit, drop, place or throw any dust, dirt, paper, ash, carcase, refuse, box, barrel, bale or any other article or thing in any public place, except in a dustbin or other receptacle provided for the deposit of refuse and rubbish;

• keep or leave any article or thing in any place where it or particles therefrom have passed or are likely to pass into any public place, except in a dustbin or other receptacle provided for the deposit of refuse and rubbish;

• dry any article of food or any other article or thing in any public place;

• place, scatter, spill or throw any blood, brine, noxious liquid, swill or any other offensive or filthy matter of any kind in such manner as to run or fall into any public place;

• beat, clean, shake, sieve or otherwise agitate any ash, hair, feathers, lime, sand, waste paper or other substance in such manner that it is carried or likely to be carried by the wind to any public place;

• throw or leave behind any bottle, can, food container, food wrapper, glass, particles of food or any other article or thing in any public place, except in a dustbin or other receptacle provided for the deposit of refuse and rubbish;

• spit any substance or expel mucus from the nose upon or onto any street or any public place, except in a dustbin or other receptacle provided for the deposit of refuse and rubbish; or

• discard or abandon in any public place any motor vehicle whose registration has been cancelled under section 27 of the Road Traffic Act 1961, any furniture or any other bulky article.

(2)  A person must not drop, deposit or throw any refuse or any other matter or thing in any channel, drain, lake, reservoir, river, stream or watercourse or upon the bank of any of the same or in any part of the sea abutting on the foreshore.

(3)  Any person who contravenes subsection (1) or (2) shall be guilty of an offence.

Under Section 21 of the EPHA, any person who commits an offence under Section 17 of the EPHA may be arrested without a warrant and taken before a Magistrate’s Court or a District Court. The punishment for littering within the meaning of Section 17(1)(a) – (g) (as set out above) is as follows:

• in the case of a first conviction, a fine not exceeding $2,000.

• in the case of a second conviction, a fine not exceeding $4,000.

• in the case of a third or subsequent conviction, a fine not exceeding $10,000.

The punishment for littering within the meaning of Section 17(1)(h), however, is more severe. The logic behind this is clear. The items listed in Section 17(1)(h) are bigger and bulkier, and would cause more inconvenience to the general public. The punishment for a littering offence within the meaning of Section 17(1)(h) is as follows:

• in the case of a first conviction, a fine not exceeding $5,000.

• in the case of of a second or subsequent conviction, to a fine not exceeding $10,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 3 months or to both.

A person who is at least 16 years of age when convicted under Section 17 (and 19) of the EPHA may also be given a Corrective Work Order (“CWO”) if the Court believes it necessary to reform the offender. The CWO can be given in lieu of or in addition to any other punishment that is already meted out to the offender. The offender who is given a CWO must perform unpaid cleaning work – this will often involve the offender wearing a bright coloured bib whilst picking up rubbish.

As the large majority of the population in Singapore live in high-rise flats and/or apartments, the offence of littering can often transform into a more serious offence. Colloquially known as “killer litter”, the act of discarding items from high rise apartments is a very serious offence. Often, where no one is hurt by an act of “killer litter”, the Prosecution will bring a charge under Section 336 of the Penal Code, which reads as follows:

“Whoever does any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished —

• in the case of a rash act, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6 months, or with fine which may extend to $2,500, or with both; or

• in the case of a negligent act, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 3 months, or with fine which may extend to $1,500, or with both.”

However, where grievous hurt or even death is caused, charges under Section 337 and Section 338 of the Penal Code will be appropriate. Sections 337 and 338 of the Penal Code read as follows:

Section 337:

“Whoever causes hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished —

• in the case of a rash act, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to one year, or with fine which may extend to $5,000, or with both; or

• in the case of a negligent act, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 6 months, or with fine which may extend to $2,500, or with both.”
  
  

Section 338:

“Whoever causes grievous hurt to any person by doing any act so rashly or negligently as to endanger human life or the personal safety of others, shall be punished —

• in the case of a rash act, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 4 years, or with fine which may extend to $10,000, or with both; or

• in the case of a negligent act, with imprisonment for a term which may extend to 2 years, or with fine which may extend to $5,000, or with both.”

In cases of “killer litter”, criminal lawyers understand that the Court would, as a starting point, impose a custodial sentence. The dominant sentencing consideration is one of general deterrence. In other words, a stiff custodial sentence will be meted out to an offender in order to send a strong signal to the general public that such behaviour is unacceptable. The policy reason behind this is clear – a large majority of Singaporeans stay in high-rise apartments and/or flats; as such, there is a pressing need to curtail the problem of “killer littering”.

In a recent case, an offender was sentenced to 5 years imprisonment for 1 charge each under Section 337 and Section 338 of the Penal Code. There, the offender had thrown a wine bottle from the seventh floor of his apartment. The wine bottle struck the head of an elderly man, killing him, before ricocheting and striking the shoulder of the man’s wife, injuring her.