Man who killed father with necklock convicted of lesser charge of rash act
The man who killed his father after placing him in a necklock was found guilty of a lesser charge of causing death by rash act on Thursday (8 June).
A district judge ruled it was difficult to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Mark Tan Peng Liat, 30, originally charged with culpable homicide, knew that his actions were likely to cause his father’s death, given the charged situation. As such, District Judge Eddy Tham reduced the charge.
Tan was having an argument with his father Tan Kok Keng, then 67, in their West Coast Rise house on 10 February 2015 when the fatal incident took place.
Tan, who is represented by lawyer Derek Kang, looked expressionless as the grounds of decision were read out to him. He will be sentenced on 11 July.
This is the second time Tan, has had his charge reduced. The businessman was originally charged with murder on 12 February 2015. The murder charge was reduced some eight months later to culpable homicide before the case went to trial, which began in July last year.
When Tan took the stand last year, he testified that his father had phoned him earlier on the day of the incident, accusing him of stealing his money. His father ordered him to come home.
Upon reaching home, Tan said that he got into an scuffle with his father in the master bedroom after the older Tan threw a punch at him. Sometime during the struggle, Tan wrapped his right arm around his father’s neck. He also used his left hand to press down on the base of his father’s neck.
After noticing that his father had stopped struggling, Tan released his grip and left the bedroom without checking on his father.
Meanwhile, the family’s Indonesian maid, Sumarti Dwi Ambarwati, who had chanced upon the incident, ran to the house of Tan’s auntie nearby to tell her about the fight.
The aunt, 72-year-old Tan Hoon Choo, testified in court last year that when she arrived at her nephew’s house, she saw him looking “bewildered and lost”. The two went upstairs together and discovered the older Tan lying motionless on the floor.
An ambulance was called and the older Tan was later pronounced dead at the National University Hospital. He had 31 external injuries in total, including bruises on his neck and internal injuries such as a thyroid cartilage fracture.
In his brief grounds of decision, DJ Tham described the incident as a “tragic” one. DJ Tham noted that the younger Tan’s relationship with his father was “good”. But the younger Tan, without informing his father, had been making regular cash withdrawals of between $1,000 and $3,000 from the older Tan’s account for a few years, DJ Tham said.
Adding that Tan’s evidence was “consistent”, he said he had “no doubt that [Tan’s] intention was clearly one of restraint”.
On the defence’s argument that the older Tan had died from a sudden cardiac arrest, DJ Tham said it was “speculative at best”.
DJ Tham added that Tan’s restraint, even for a few minutes, would be enough to cause “resultant and irreparable harm”.
“Given the manner in which he had applied himself with both the right arm neck lock and the left hand grip over the neck around the collar bone, I found that [Mark Tan] had instead committed an act so recklessly that it would amount to what is considered a rash act.”
For causing death through a rash act, Tan faces up to five years in jail and/or a fine.
For culpable homicide not amounting to murder, Tan could have been jailed up to 10 years and/or fined and/or caned.
