SINGAPORE — Former cop Iskandar Rahmat was sentenced to hang for the murders of a father and son pair today (Dec 4) after a High Court judge found gaps in his claim that the deaths resulted from him acting in self-defence.

Instead, evidence points to the 36-year-old arming himself for a robbery, and carrying out a relentless and cruel stabbing frenzy with the intention of silencing the victims, said Justice Tay Yong Kwang. “There could be no doubt that the exceptions of private defence and sudden fight were totally inapplicable in the situation here,” the judge added, in convicting Iskandar under Section 300(a) of the Penal Code, the most severe form of murder which entails mandatory death.

His lawyer Shashi Nathan told reporters they will be appealing.

On July 10, 2013, the body of Tan Chee Heong, 42, was dragged along Upper Serangoon Road under a silver Toyota Camry, shocking passers-by. The bloody trail led back to 14J Hillside Drive, about 1km away, where his father Tan Boon Sin’s body was found with multiple stab wounds.

The shocking double murder dominated headlines, especially after Iskandar, then an active police officer, was named as the suspect. After a 54-hour manhunt, the 14-year veteran in the police force was arrested at a popular eatery in Johor Bahru.

Over a nine-day trial that started in October, the court heard that Iskandar had hatched the plan to rob the elder Tan’s money to avert a possible sacking over his “financial embarrassment”. He carried out his scheme a day before a deadline to make a S$50,000 lump sum payment to clear his S$65,000 bank debt.

A grab-and-run job was the plan, Iskandar claimed. But Justice Tay threw this out yesterday, pointing out that only a “very foolish prospective thief” would adopt such a plan that involved many contingencies.

For instance, the escape plan involved making it several hundred metres to the main road to hail a cab without being spotted by Tan’s neighbours. Or that he would be able to get a taxi quickly, while not raising the suspicions of the driver.

“The accused did not appear to me to be such a foolish person. He would not have come up with such an inane plan,” said Justice Tay. “His attitude about his escape plan after the intended theft stood in stark contrast to the meticulous planning that he made for the charade with (Tan Boon Sin) earlier that day.”

The judge was referring to the ruse cooked up by Iskandar to get the elder Tan to take out around S$200,000 cash from a safety deposit box at Certis CISCO in Paya Lebar. Tan was to remove the money and place a “CCTV camera” inside, as part of a confidential operation to nab thieves whom the police had intelligence would strike again.

Even if Iskandar’s plan that day was indeed a “simple grab-and-run”, it defies logic that he did not take the ample opportunities for him to see the plan through, noted Justice Tay.

The “golden moment” came when the elder Tan opened the gate for Iskandar to step out for a smoke, he said. The bag of money was sitting in the living room, and Iskandar had a clear escape path. It was “unbelievable” that Iskandar took “five long minutes” smoking outside, rather than look for the chance to flee with the money.

Iskandar’s claim of self-defence was also not applicable, the judge ruled, saying he did not believe Iskandar’s account that the elder Tan had flown into a rage and charged at him with a knife, upon realising the scam. Moments earlier, the victim had been “trusting and hospitable”, the judge said. “The alleged sudden and complete change in (Tan’s) attitude was also not consonant with the evidence.” 

In addition, the number of wounds dealt to each victim — more than a dozen on the face and neck regions — also belied Iskandar’s claim that he was trying to fend off an assault.

Not all of Iskandar’s account of the events that day were dismissed by Justice Tay. For instance, he accepted that Iskandar was not lying in ambush behind the wooden main door for the younger Tan, contrary to the prosecution’s case. 

Neither did he agree with prosecutors that Iskandar was “completely nonchalant” about running over the younger Tan because he wanted him dead anyway. “The car was the accused’s means of escape and not a mean murder machine,” he added. 

Nevertheless, Justice Tay said his findings show that Iskandar caused the death of both Tans by “attacking them cruelly and relentlessly with the clear intention of causing death” and sentenced him to hang.

In front of his own family and friends, as well as that of his victims, Iskandar stared blankly at the judge as the sentence was read out to him.

In the 20 minutes he was granted to speak with his family after the verdict, many of Iskandar’s relatives and friends were sobbing as he smiled back at them behind a glass pane.

Outside court, Mr Nathan said his client was putting on brave front for his family even though he was disappointed with the verdict.

The Tans’ family members declined to be interviewed. The elder Tan’s widow did not attend the hearing. Instead, she stayed home, keeping the curtains drawn against the press camped outside. After a while, a relative, who declined to be named, told reporters that the widow is now living by herself in the house.

“She has practically become a person who cannot accept reality anymore. It’s not something ordinary that has happened to the family, you have to understand their situation,” he added in Mandarin before shooing the media away.