Apex court hears cross appeals for Kallang slashing case

SINGAPORE — If a group carries out a series of assaults, should their individual penalties be distinguished by who dealt the fatal blow? How much weight should be given to the fact that their earlier victims had suffered similar blows but did not die?

These were among the questions thrown up as the apex court heard appeals yesterday involving two accomplices in a brazen robbery spree in Kallang in 2010 that left one Indian construction worker dead and three other victims severely injured.

Micheal Anak Garing, 28, was appealing to be spared the hangman’s noose, while the prosecution was appealing for his accomplice Tony Anak Imba, 37, to be sentenced to death.

In a violent crime spree which went on from the late hours of May 29 to the early hours of May 30, Micheal, Tony, and two others — all Sarawakians — severely injured two Indian nationals and a Singaporean before they set upon Shanmuganathan Dillidurai, 41, who died on the spot after sustaining a fractured skull, among other injuries.

In sentencing Tony to life imprisonment and 24 strokes of the cane last year, Justice Choo Han Teck held that Tony had not inflicted the fatal wounds, but had restrained the deceased for Micheal to fatally slash Shanmuganathan 20 times with a parang. Micheal was sentenced to death. The court also found that he was the only one who used the parang on the three other victims in the seven-hour orgy of terror.

Yesterday, Micheal’s defence lawyer Ramesh Tiwary questioned if these assertions against his client had been “proven beyond a reasonable doubt”, given that they were based only on the account of a third accomplice, Hairee Anak Landak. Hairee was sentenced to 33 years’ jail and 24 strokes of the cane in 2013 after pleading guilty to armed robbery and grievous hurt. A fourth alleged accomplice, Donny Meluda, is still at large.

Mr Tiwary spent almost an hour poking holes in Hairee’s testimony, such as how he had initially admitted to kicking the deceased, and later insisted he did not do so in court. Hairee had also “clearly admitted” to the police that he knew Micheal was armed with a parang before they left their house in Geylang, only to later insist on the stand that the statement of facts was a lie, said Mr Tiwary.

“This and the other discrepancies which we have highlighted cast a serious doubt on the veracity and truthfulness of Hairee’s evidence,” he argued.

Mr Tiwary reiterated Micheal’s case — that he had not inflicted all the injuries on Shanmuganathan, and that Tony had seized the parang from him after dealing the initial blows.

While acknowledging the inconsistencies in Hairee’s testimonies, Judge of Appeal Andrew Phang — who heard the case with Justices Chao Hick Tin and Judith Prakash — questioned if they were “fatally inconsistent” to the case.

Witnesses’ testimonies are never perfect, he said. “The question is whether (Hairee’s) lie goes to the core of what is against Micheal,” said Justice Phang.

He added that there was “no apparent reason” for Tony to make his way back to finish off the deceased after Micheal’s initial blows, as the “whole criminal enterprise was to rob”.

To that, Mr Tiwary argued: “If everything that surrounds the core is weak, how strong is the core? ... Can we depend on it to hang a person? ... If the surrounding is weak, the core cannot stand.”

The prosecution, on the other hand, argued that Tony was “in sync with Micheal” in his motivations to employ considerable violence on their victims, but Justice Choo’s judgment placed “undue emphasis” on the fact that Tony was not using the parang.

The test, argued Deputy Public Prosecutors Anandan Bala and Marcus Foo, was whether or not the offender had exhibited a “blatant disregard for human life”.

The judge failed to give adequate weight to the fact that Tony had “actively participated” in a series of “extremely brutal attacks”, which culminated in the murder of Shanmuganathan. Tony was the one who ambushed the victims, and had restrained Shanmuganathan in a manner which further exposed him to Micheal’s slashing.

“At the very onset of the series of attacks, Tony had already displayed the willingness to employ brutal measures to subdue his victims ... The bloodlust that Micheal appeared to have been infected with was similarly plaguing Tony as well,” argued the prosecutors.

The gang of four had mutually agreed with “permanent incapacitation” as the method for carrying out their robberies, and it was “highly significant” that Tony has facilitated such incapacitation, they said.

Whether he wielded the parang or not was secondary, said the prosecutors. The Court of Appeal reserved judgment. KELLY NG