Teenager who killed River Valley High schoolmate with axe loses appeal for shorter jail term

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.
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.
During sentencing in the High Court, 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.
The Court of Appeal comprised Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and Justices Belinda Ang and Woo Bih Li.
Delivering the verdict, Chief Justice Menon called the killer’s plan “a tragically ill-conceived” one.
He said an important issue in this appeal was the extent to which the offender’s mental condition might reduce his culpability in terms of sentencing.
Basing their observations off several psychiatric reports, the court found that the offender was suffering from major depressive disorder (MDD) of moderate severity at the time of the offence.
“While this did not affect his understanding of what was right or wrong, or his ability to control his actions, it did affect his response to the plight that he thought he faced,” said the Chief Justice.
“He experienced depressive feelings and suicidal ideations, and because of his mental state, he could not develop a viable set of options to deal with these issues.”
He added that the offender’s response to his plight was also “adversely affected by his consumption of (violent) videos and his unwillingness to seek help from others”. 
“These were matters within his control and although his MDD was a causative factor that led to the killing, these other factors contributed significantly to the killing, by making him more callous and desensitising him to what his eventual plan would entail,” he said. 
“It does not appear that (the offender) stopped to think about the victim prior to and at the point of the killing. He did not know Ethan at all and was indifferent to whoever it might be who came into the toilet at the relevant time.”
The Chief Justice said that while the offender’s condition appeared to be in remission during his remand, it was “not possible to arrive at a longer-term prognosis”.
He said the offender exhibited “a chilling degree of premeditation, and a cold and calculated approach in planning and preparing for the killing”.
“From as early as five months prior to the offence, he had researched the internet for a suitable weapon and picked a machete or axe because it would be suitable for an inexperienced user. He then tested the sharpness of the weapons, and when he was not convinced of their lethality, arranged to have them sharpened,” said Chief Justice Menon.
The offender examined River Valley High School’s floor plan, decided on a school slashing because he was older than most of the students and thus was more likely to secure his goal. He prepared for the attack by watching videos online to “educate himself on the most efficient way of killing his prospective victim”.
“He taught himself how to grip the axe properly from the internet,” said the judge. “It seems to us that the degree and extent of planning and preparation that was undertaken by (the offender) went well beyond that seen in many of the precedents.”
The judge then turned to two poems the offender had written sometime between February and March 2021, alluding to mass killings in a school.
“It does seem to us that (the offender) appeared to be enthralled by the idea of a school killing and the notoriety it could bring him,” said Chief Justice Menon.
“(The offender) contends that the (sentencing) judge erred in placing too much focus on his poetry, and wrongfully concluded that the found the idea of a school killing ‘appealing’. We disagree,” said the Chief Justice.
He quoted lines from one of the poems, which include: “And a school left in a bloody shroud”, “The whole country was left rightly shook. Though not as bad as Sandy Hook” and “But he did gain notoriety, As the first school stabber in history!”
The Chief Justice said this case also featured “a high degree of brutality and callousness, and the targeting of a wholly innocent, defenceless young victim who just happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time”.
The court found that while the offender’s depression undoubtedly contributed to the killing, there were also other contributory factors at play. 
“These include, in particular, his consumption of … videos which he knew was perverse and abnormal, and which ultimately worsened his callousness, desensitised him, and removed the psychological obstacles involved in taking someone’s life in an axe or knife attack. He also did not at any time seek help for the despair he felt,” said Chief Justice Menon.
As for rehabilitation of the offender, the court found that it does not mean that rehabilitation is impossible or that redemption is out of reach, even while the offender remains in prison.
“It appears that (he) has already commenced his rehabilitation in prison, and there is no reason why he cannot continue to do so there,” said the Chief Justice.
Where to get help:
Samaritans of Singapore Hotline: 1767
Institute of Mental Health’s Helpline: 6389 2222
Singapore Association for Mental Health Helpline: 1800 283 7019
You can also find a list of international helplines here. If someone you know is at immediate risk, call 24-hour emergency medical services.