Warning: This story contains references to suicide.
SINGAPORE: A teenager who received 16 years’ jail for killing his schoolmate with an axe at River Valley High School lost his appeal on Wednesday (Oct 23) and did not get any reduction in his imprisonment term.
The teen, who turned 19 this year and cannot be named as he was 16 at the time of the killing, had asked for eight to 10 years’ jail instead.
In dismissing the appeal, the Court of Appeal noted that his thought process was logical, and that he knew the nature and wrongfulness of his acts.
The three-judge court also noted that the depressed teenager had refused to seek help, and that there was no reason why the sentencing principle of retribution should not prevail in this case.
In response to questions from CNA, his defence lawyer said he would not be pursuing other avenues such as presidential clemency.
The teenager had attacked 13-year-old Ethan Hun Zhe Kai in a school toilet on Jul 19, 2021 in an unprecedented crime that shocked the nation.
Ethan was a random target and was attacked from the back after the killer put up tape to stop others from entering.
The offender called the police afterwards and said: “I just killed someone. With an axe. I don’t know who. Are you going to send someone or not?”
The killing was part of what the sentencing judge called his “twisted plan” to kill more than one individual in a spree in order to give the police no choice but to shoot him fatally.
HIS MENTAL CONDITION
The offender was originally charged with murder but this was reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder after the Institute of Mental Health (IMH) assessed that he was suffering from major depressive disorder at the time.
The disorder substantially impaired his capacity to know whether his acts were wrong, and the defence of diminished responsibility therefore applied to him, lowering the charge.
According to past court hearings, he was previously seen as a patient at IMH, and attempted suicide twice before, including at the age of 14.
The prosecution had sought 12 to 16 years’ jail, while the defence sought five years.
An IMH report stated that the offender retained control over his actions and understood that what he was doing was morally and legally wrong, even with his depression.
The sentencing judge noted that he “consciously decided to kill in school” as he believed that his chances of killing someone before being subdued would be higher there than in public.
Justice Hoo Sheau Peng, who sentenced the offender to 16 years’ jail, said he “exhibited a chilling degree of premeditation and cold logic” in planning and preparing for the killing.
He selected weapons, tested and sharpened them and taught himself to wield them to maximum effect by watching videos.
He also had photographs of the school’s floor plan on his mobile phone, selecting the toilet as the site as it was far from his classroom, and concealed the weapons ahead of time.
“His entire plan was premised on his keen awareness that what he planned to do would be so outrageous and horrific that it could not but incite a lethal response from law enforcement officers,” said Justice Hoo in her grounds of decision.
At the appeal, Mr Sunil Sudheesan and Ms Joyce Khoo from Quahe Woo & Palmer had argued that 16 years was crushing on the young offender.
They focused their arguments on the mitigating value of their client’s mental condition, his treatment steps since and extreme remorse expressed in a letter to Ethan’s family.
