The brawl

The brawl

 "A violent fight broke out between two groups, during which one person was stabbed in the arm. My son, who knew some of the people involved, arrived at the scene shortly after the injury was inflicted and became involved in the conflict, but was not actively involved. He is now the subject of criminal proceedings and I'm worried that he could be blamed in some way for the blows that were exchanged, when he wasn't yet at the scene. Is this possible? " 

Z, Vaud

The criminal law logically punishes the act of causing bodily harm to another person, but there are situations where it goes further by also punishing people who are not directly responsible for the injuries suffered by the victim of the action being prosecuted.

The same applies to participation in a dangerous brawl: article 133 of the Criminal Code (CP) punishes the offence of brawling, which consists of taking part in a physical altercation between three or more people that results in death or bodily harm.

In this respect, it is irrelevant who is responsible for the blow or blows: the offence is the fact of being involved in a brawl. This criminal provision makes it possible to avoid situations where it is impossible to identify the person who caused the injury and the act goes unpunished.

A more delicate question is whether the person must be on the scene when the bodily harm occurs. If the person concerned takes part in the conflict and leaves the scene before the injury has been inflicted, case law considers that he or she has contributed to making the brawl dangerous and is therefore guilty of the offence provided for in Article 133 of the Criminal Code.

This reasoning cannot be applied to the person who arrives on the scene after the harmful event, as there is no question of accusing him of contributing to the dangerous nature of the brawl. However, the Federal Court considers that the primary purpose of the criminal law is to overcome the difficulty of proving the identity of the perpetrator and that the conduct of the participant is, in itself, sufficiently serious to be punished.

Your son was caught up in a conflict that turned out to be dangerous, resulting in stabbings. It is possible that this behaviour alone could make him criminally liable, even though he did not arrive at the scene until later. That said, it is possible that the length of his involvement, if it was very short, and his passivity, which you mention in the conflict, are arguments leading to a reduction in his fault.