Sunday, January 16, 2005
Sentenced for their roles
(reproduced without permission from the Staits Times, Sat Jan 15, 2005)
The highly publicised trial on the SAF dunking death came to a close as the sentences were meted out. Selins Lum and Tracy Sua report.
>> THEY DID THE DUNKING
Divanandhari Ambat Chandrasekharan, 29, and Jeff Ng Chin Fong, 28, were each jailed for nine months.
Accused of: Dunking the trainees into the tub several times and "digging" into their noses to stop them from holding their breath, and preenting them from surfacing.
Defence: Divanandhari claimed he did not dunk either man as he was away from the tub. Ng claimed none of the trainees he handled had collapsed.
In mitigation, Divanandhari's lawyer, Mr Shiever S.R., said Divanandhari was so loyal to the army that "he was married to the army".
Ng's lawyer, Mr Gurcharanjit S. Hundal, said it was a grave misjudgement on his part as he had not read the lesson plan or questioned what he was required to do.
He said Ng "appreciates that he could have been more careful".
District judge Ng Peng Hong said: The way in which they dunked Second Sergeant Hu Enhuai and Captain Ho Wan Huo -- defenceless trainees with their hands bound behind their backs -- was "shocking and seneless" and "torturous and inhuamne".
The trainees' heads were held underwater, with help from other instructors, and no sufficient opportunity was given to let them recover between dunks.
During the trial, the two insinuated that the prosecution was hiding evidence by raising the issue of alleged missing photographs, and had claimed that the lesson plan for the course was nowhere to be found, implying that the Singapore Armed Forces was disorganised.
>> HE GAVE THE INSTRUCTIONS
Pandiaraj Mayandi, 34, is appealing against his conviction and three-month jail term.
Accused of: Instigating Divanandhari and Ng to cause the death of 2nd Sgt. Hu and endanger the life of Capt Ho by instructing them to dunk trainees four times, for up to 20 seconds each time.
Defence: He admitted telling instructors to do exactly that in a safety briefing because he believed it was the correct method, and told them not to manhandle trainees.
In mitigation, his lawyer Mr Selva K. Naidu, said Pandiaraj was merely following existing practice and another person in his shoes would probably have done the same.
The dunking carried out on Aug 21, 2003 was a result not only of Pandiaraj's briefing, but also a result of a systemic lapse in the conduct of the course.
A testimonial by Chief Commando Officer Colonel Yeo Eidek said Pandiaraj's performance in all areas "has been nothing short of exemplary and outstanding".
District judge Ng Peng Hong said: Pandiaraj did not dunk 2nd Sgt Hu and Capt Ho or give instructions to Divanandhari and Ng to "dig" trainees noses and mouths.
However he had given instructions to submerge trainees three to four times, for up to 20 seconds each time, which were a direct contravention of the lesson plan.
His outstanding military career and contributions as part of SAF's troops in former East Timor under the United Nations peace-keeping operations were considered.
>> HE FAILED TO STOP THEM
S. Balakrishnan, 45, is appealing against his conviction and his two-month jail term.
Accused of: Failing to stop Divanandhari and Ng from dunking 2nd Sgt Hu and Capt Ho several times and preventing them from surfacing to breathe.
Defence: He did not see the dunking of either traineeS (?? of either trainees? Fire the ST editor. Now.) as he was walking around most of the time.
Balakrishnan was only following the chain of command -- Pandiaraj Mayandi was his superior and the two lieutenants who did the dunking were of a higher rank than him. Lawyer Christopher Bridges stressed that Balakrishnan thought dunking was approved, as high-ranking officers did not object to it.
In mitigation, he tendered a testimonial from Chief Commando Officer, Colonel Yeo Eidek, who said that Balakrishnan, a former member of the elite Special Operations Force, was a very dedicated and obedient soldier.
District judge Ng Peng Hong said: The fact that Balakrishnan had taken pictures of Ng arm-locking a trainee in the tub showed that he was aware of such dangerous acts but did nothing to stop them.
As an experienced soldier, Balakrishnan knew there was a lesson plan and the proper method of conducting water treatment but chose to follow Pandiaraj's order.
Balakrishnan did not also highlight to Pandiaraj, who was new to the Commando Training Wing, that dunking was contrary to the lesson plan.
*****
Questions
1) What crime were they actually charged with?
It's funny. All those words, but the crux of the matter remains unanswered.
Be mindful of the difference between being charged with a crime, and receiving sentence.
In this instance
charges - unknown.
Sentences - 2 months. 3 months. 9 months. 9 months.
Mitigating factors - loyalty to the army. not reading the lesson plan. following existing practice (or rather, since clearly stated in the ST article, believing - incorrectly - that one was following existing practice), exemplary and outstanding performance in the army, dedication and obedience.
2) Are the sentences commensurate with the crimes?
*****
Seek ye Answers
From Wikepedia (American) -
In the legal sense, Murder is the crime of causing the death of another human being, without lawful excuse, and with intent to kill them, or with intent to cause them grievous bodily harm. When an illegal death is not caused intentionally, but is caused by recklessness (not in Australia) or negligence (or there is some defense, such as insanity or diminished capacity), the crime committed may be referred to as manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide, which is considered to be less serious than murder. In the United States, manslaughter is often broken into two categories: involuntary manslaughter and voluntary manslaughter.
(presumably not in Australia since recklessness is practically a way of life...)
From the UK Home Office, 2000 (British)
At present in English law there are two general homicidal offences - murder and manslaughter. The most serious, murder, requires proof of an intention to kill or cause serious injury. If there are mitigating circumstances, such as provocation or diminished responsibility, then the offence is one of manslaughter - often referred to as "voluntary manslaughter". However, if someone kills but did not intend to cause death or serious injury but was blameworthy in some other way, then this is often referred to as "involuntary manslaughter".
Perhaps Singaporean law, historically based on American and British law, has evolved to the extent that it surpasses its originators. It appears that we can now commit homicide without actually committing murder, or manslaughter. Or perhaps it was simply not reported by the ST reporters.
Let us suppose instead that the charges were indeed of manslaughter. Let us be optimistic, rather than cynical about our judiciary processes.
*****
From the Jersey Legal Information Board (US)
Sentences :
8–10 years starting point for manslaughter arising from supply or administration of Class A drugs—starting point of 8 years if defendant (a) administered and supervised injection; (b) did not instigate drug-taking; (c) introduced deceased to injecting drugs at deceased’s request; (d) knew risk to deceased increased; (e) tried to save deceased’s life:Harris v. Att. Gen. (C.A.), 2001 JLR 362
10 years’ imprisonment justified for manslaughter almost amounting to murder—with mitigation for youth and previous good character, 7 years appropriate:Att. Gen. v. O’Brien (C.A.), 1979 J.J. 187
mitigation—guilty plea, co-operation and remorse insufficient to reduce period of imprisonment by 4½ years:Harris v. Att. Gen. (C.A.), 2001 JLR 362
*
Vancouver :
Vancouver -- A man who helped beat and stomp a crack addict to death has had his eight-year prison sentence reduced by B.C.'s Court of Appeal.
A jury found Jason Richter guilty in the January, 2002, death of Mark Baptiste outside a Sechelt crack house. He argued the term was too long for a manslaughter conviction.
The Appeal Court panel cut his sentence by one year, saying the lower court judge placed too much emphasis on denunciation, and not enough on the prospect of rehabilitation. CP
-- Seven years.
*
Cambridge, Massachusetts
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — A Harvard grad student was spared the possibility of life in prison without parole as a jury cleared him of first-degree murder but convicted him of voluntary manslaughter in the stabbing death of an 18-year-old father.
Alexander Pring-Wilson, 26, appeared stricken but calm as he was sentenced to six to eight years in prison for the fatal street brawl. He could have received as many as 20 years in prison or as little as probation.
Family and friends of the victim, Michael Colono, were visibly upset by the verdict and asked the judge for a stiffer sentence Thursday afternoon.
"Pring-Wilson may be a smart man, but I think he made a big mistake taking a life for egotistical reasons," Colono's older sister, Damaris, told the judge.
*
United Kingdom
Couple's sentence branded too soft Jan 14 2005
By Andy Probert, Evening Mail
The real grandmother of the tragic toddler who was poisoned with salt by his adopted parents today said the cruel couple should have been jailed for life.
Christian Blewitt, aged three, died after his new parents deliberately fed him large doses of salt.
As Ian and Angel Gay were sentenced to five years each after being found guilty of manslaughter but cleared of murder, Christian's grandmother Susan Osik slammed the punishment as too soft.
She said:" I wanted them to get life. They should lock them up and throw away the key.
"A couple with all they had should have been able to give Christian a better life.
"I just wanted to ask them why they did this to a little baby, it is terrible." Pensions adviser Angela Gay and engineer husband Ian poisoned Christian with salt and caused fatal brain injuries following a trial adoption placement.
Mrs Gay, 38, and her husband, 37, of Lutley Lane, Hayley Green, near Halesowen, were cleared yesterday of the youngster's murder but convicted of an alternative charge of manslaughter by a jury after more than eight hours deliberation at Worcester Crown Court. They denied the charges.
Afterwards, Angela Gay's parents Margaret and Royston Swain, both 61, of Compton Grange, Whitehall Road, Cradley Heath, reacted with fury at the verdicts and said "British justice stinks".
Mr Swain said: "The last two years have been an absolute nightmare for all our family but we always thought they would not be found guilty.
"This case has been hanging over the family for a very long time and we still believe they did not put a finger on Christian, or indeed fed him salt."
Sentencing the couple, Mr Justice Pitchers said they must have made the deliberate choice "in cold blood" to subject Christian to ingest salt.
He criticised Mrs Gay for going back to work within days of the placement starting and also while Christian lay desperately ill in hospital.
The couple were living a luxury lifestyle when Christian and his twoyearold brother and sister, from West Bromwich, were placed with them by Sandwell social services at their former home in Greyfriars Drive, Bromsgrove, in November 2002.
The prosecution claimed Christian had been force fed four teaspoons of salt - nearly six times the average a body can hold - and caused brain injuries by slamming him down on a mattress or by shaking him.
*
The Judicial Commision of New South Wales (Australia)
231 manslaughter offenders were sentenced to a term of imprisonment (or penal servitude). The median term of imprisonment was 7 years and the median non-parole period was 4 years 3 months
*
Commensurate?
9 months. 3 months. 2 months.
A combined sentence of twenty three months between four convicted now-criminals over the death of an individual who leaves behind only memories of himself, with his parents, siblings, friends, and loved-ones.
Twenty three months. Not even two years.
Spread between four complicit individuals.
The maximum sentence for manslaughter in both the UK and US is ten years in jail.
Manslaughter distinguishes itself from murder by dint of a lack of intention to kill or cause serious injury.
These four individuals would have been lucky (although expected) in another country to have had their charges diminished from murder to manslaughter.
Commensurate? You tell me.
The highly publicised trial on the SAF dunking death came to a close as the sentences were meted out. Selins Lum and Tracy Sua report.
>> THEY DID THE DUNKING
Divanandhari Ambat Chandrasekharan, 29, and Jeff Ng Chin Fong, 28, were each jailed for nine months.
Accused of: Dunking the trainees into the tub several times and "digging" into their noses to stop them from holding their breath, and preenting them from surfacing.
Defence: Divanandhari claimed he did not dunk either man as he was away from the tub. Ng claimed none of the trainees he handled had collapsed.
In mitigation, Divanandhari's lawyer, Mr Shiever S.R., said Divanandhari was so loyal to the army that "he was married to the army".
Ng's lawyer, Mr Gurcharanjit S. Hundal, said it was a grave misjudgement on his part as he had not read the lesson plan or questioned what he was required to do.
He said Ng "appreciates that he could have been more careful".
District judge Ng Peng Hong said: The way in which they dunked Second Sergeant Hu Enhuai and Captain Ho Wan Huo -- defenceless trainees with their hands bound behind their backs -- was "shocking and seneless" and "torturous and inhuamne".
The trainees' heads were held underwater, with help from other instructors, and no sufficient opportunity was given to let them recover between dunks.
During the trial, the two insinuated that the prosecution was hiding evidence by raising the issue of alleged missing photographs, and had claimed that the lesson plan for the course was nowhere to be found, implying that the Singapore Armed Forces was disorganised.
>> HE GAVE THE INSTRUCTIONS
Pandiaraj Mayandi, 34, is appealing against his conviction and three-month jail term.
Accused of: Instigating Divanandhari and Ng to cause the death of 2nd Sgt. Hu and endanger the life of Capt Ho by instructing them to dunk trainees four times, for up to 20 seconds each time.
Defence: He admitted telling instructors to do exactly that in a safety briefing because he believed it was the correct method, and told them not to manhandle trainees.
In mitigation, his lawyer Mr Selva K. Naidu, said Pandiaraj was merely following existing practice and another person in his shoes would probably have done the same.
The dunking carried out on Aug 21, 2003 was a result not only of Pandiaraj's briefing, but also a result of a systemic lapse in the conduct of the course.
A testimonial by Chief Commando Officer Colonel Yeo Eidek said Pandiaraj's performance in all areas "has been nothing short of exemplary and outstanding".
District judge Ng Peng Hong said: Pandiaraj did not dunk 2nd Sgt Hu and Capt Ho or give instructions to Divanandhari and Ng to "dig" trainees noses and mouths.
However he had given instructions to submerge trainees three to four times, for up to 20 seconds each time, which were a direct contravention of the lesson plan.
His outstanding military career and contributions as part of SAF's troops in former East Timor under the United Nations peace-keeping operations were considered.
>> HE FAILED TO STOP THEM
S. Balakrishnan, 45, is appealing against his conviction and his two-month jail term.
Accused of: Failing to stop Divanandhari and Ng from dunking 2nd Sgt Hu and Capt Ho several times and preventing them from surfacing to breathe.
Defence: He did not see the dunking of either traineeS (?? of either trainees? Fire the ST editor. Now.) as he was walking around most of the time.
Balakrishnan was only following the chain of command -- Pandiaraj Mayandi was his superior and the two lieutenants who did the dunking were of a higher rank than him. Lawyer Christopher Bridges stressed that Balakrishnan thought dunking was approved, as high-ranking officers did not object to it.
In mitigation, he tendered a testimonial from Chief Commando Officer, Colonel Yeo Eidek, who said that Balakrishnan, a former member of the elite Special Operations Force, was a very dedicated and obedient soldier.
District judge Ng Peng Hong said: The fact that Balakrishnan had taken pictures of Ng arm-locking a trainee in the tub showed that he was aware of such dangerous acts but did nothing to stop them.
As an experienced soldier, Balakrishnan knew there was a lesson plan and the proper method of conducting water treatment but chose to follow Pandiaraj's order.
Balakrishnan did not also highlight to Pandiaraj, who was new to the Commando Training Wing, that dunking was contrary to the lesson plan.
*****
Questions
1) What crime were they actually charged with?
It's funny. All those words, but the crux of the matter remains unanswered.
Be mindful of the difference between being charged with a crime, and receiving sentence.
In this instance
charges - unknown.
Sentences - 2 months. 3 months. 9 months. 9 months.
Mitigating factors - loyalty to the army. not reading the lesson plan. following existing practice (or rather, since clearly stated in the ST article, believing - incorrectly - that one was following existing practice), exemplary and outstanding performance in the army, dedication and obedience.
2) Are the sentences commensurate with the crimes?
*****
Seek ye Answers
From Wikepedia (American) -
In the legal sense, Murder is the crime of causing the death of another human being, without lawful excuse, and with intent to kill them, or with intent to cause them grievous bodily harm. When an illegal death is not caused intentionally, but is caused by recklessness (not in Australia) or negligence (or there is some defense, such as insanity or diminished capacity), the crime committed may be referred to as manslaughter or criminally negligent homicide, which is considered to be less serious than murder. In the United States, manslaughter is often broken into two categories: involuntary manslaughter and voluntary manslaughter.
(presumably not in Australia since recklessness is practically a way of life...)
From the UK Home Office, 2000 (British)
At present in English law there are two general homicidal offences - murder and manslaughter. The most serious, murder, requires proof of an intention to kill or cause serious injury. If there are mitigating circumstances, such as provocation or diminished responsibility, then the offence is one of manslaughter - often referred to as "voluntary manslaughter". However, if someone kills but did not intend to cause death or serious injury but was blameworthy in some other way, then this is often referred to as "involuntary manslaughter".
Perhaps Singaporean law, historically based on American and British law, has evolved to the extent that it surpasses its originators. It appears that we can now commit homicide without actually committing murder, or manslaughter. Or perhaps it was simply not reported by the ST reporters.
Let us suppose instead that the charges were indeed of manslaughter. Let us be optimistic, rather than cynical about our judiciary processes.
*****
From the Jersey Legal Information Board (US)
Sentences :
8–10 years starting point for manslaughter arising from supply or administration of Class A drugs—starting point of 8 years if defendant (a) administered and supervised injection; (b) did not instigate drug-taking; (c) introduced deceased to injecting drugs at deceased’s request; (d) knew risk to deceased increased; (e) tried to save deceased’s life:Harris v. Att. Gen. (C.A.), 2001 JLR 362
10 years’ imprisonment justified for manslaughter almost amounting to murder—with mitigation for youth and previous good character, 7 years appropriate:Att. Gen. v. O’Brien (C.A.), 1979 J.J. 187
mitigation—guilty plea, co-operation and remorse insufficient to reduce period of imprisonment by 4½ years:Harris v. Att. Gen. (C.A.), 2001 JLR 362
*
Vancouver :
Vancouver -- A man who helped beat and stomp a crack addict to death has had his eight-year prison sentence reduced by B.C.'s Court of Appeal.
A jury found Jason Richter guilty in the January, 2002, death of Mark Baptiste outside a Sechelt crack house. He argued the term was too long for a manslaughter conviction.
The Appeal Court panel cut his sentence by one year, saying the lower court judge placed too much emphasis on denunciation, and not enough on the prospect of rehabilitation. CP
-- Seven years.
*
Cambridge, Massachusetts
CAMBRIDGE, Mass. — A Harvard grad student was spared the possibility of life in prison without parole as a jury cleared him of first-degree murder but convicted him of voluntary manslaughter in the stabbing death of an 18-year-old father.
Alexander Pring-Wilson, 26, appeared stricken but calm as he was sentenced to six to eight years in prison for the fatal street brawl. He could have received as many as 20 years in prison or as little as probation.
Family and friends of the victim, Michael Colono, were visibly upset by the verdict and asked the judge for a stiffer sentence Thursday afternoon.
"Pring-Wilson may be a smart man, but I think he made a big mistake taking a life for egotistical reasons," Colono's older sister, Damaris, told the judge.
*
United Kingdom
Couple's sentence branded too soft Jan 14 2005
By Andy Probert, Evening Mail
The real grandmother of the tragic toddler who was poisoned with salt by his adopted parents today said the cruel couple should have been jailed for life.
Christian Blewitt, aged three, died after his new parents deliberately fed him large doses of salt.
As Ian and Angel Gay were sentenced to five years each after being found guilty of manslaughter but cleared of murder, Christian's grandmother Susan Osik slammed the punishment as too soft.
She said:" I wanted them to get life. They should lock them up and throw away the key.
"A couple with all they had should have been able to give Christian a better life.
"I just wanted to ask them why they did this to a little baby, it is terrible." Pensions adviser Angela Gay and engineer husband Ian poisoned Christian with salt and caused fatal brain injuries following a trial adoption placement.
Mrs Gay, 38, and her husband, 37, of Lutley Lane, Hayley Green, near Halesowen, were cleared yesterday of the youngster's murder but convicted of an alternative charge of manslaughter by a jury after more than eight hours deliberation at Worcester Crown Court. They denied the charges.
Afterwards, Angela Gay's parents Margaret and Royston Swain, both 61, of Compton Grange, Whitehall Road, Cradley Heath, reacted with fury at the verdicts and said "British justice stinks".
Mr Swain said: "The last two years have been an absolute nightmare for all our family but we always thought they would not be found guilty.
"This case has been hanging over the family for a very long time and we still believe they did not put a finger on Christian, or indeed fed him salt."
Sentencing the couple, Mr Justice Pitchers said they must have made the deliberate choice "in cold blood" to subject Christian to ingest salt.
He criticised Mrs Gay for going back to work within days of the placement starting and also while Christian lay desperately ill in hospital.
The couple were living a luxury lifestyle when Christian and his twoyearold brother and sister, from West Bromwich, were placed with them by Sandwell social services at their former home in Greyfriars Drive, Bromsgrove, in November 2002.
The prosecution claimed Christian had been force fed four teaspoons of salt - nearly six times the average a body can hold - and caused brain injuries by slamming him down on a mattress or by shaking him.
*
The Judicial Commision of New South Wales (Australia)
231 manslaughter offenders were sentenced to a term of imprisonment (or penal servitude). The median term of imprisonment was 7 years and the median non-parole period was 4 years 3 months
*
Commensurate?
9 months. 3 months. 2 months.
A combined sentence of twenty three months between four convicted now-criminals over the death of an individual who leaves behind only memories of himself, with his parents, siblings, friends, and loved-ones.
Twenty three months. Not even two years.
Spread between four complicit individuals.
The maximum sentence for manslaughter in both the UK and US is ten years in jail.
Manslaughter distinguishes itself from murder by dint of a lack of intention to kill or cause serious injury.
These four individuals would have been lucky (although expected) in another country to have had their charges diminished from murder to manslaughter.
Commensurate? You tell me.
