18-year-old who killed River Valley High School student with axe sentenced to 16 years' jail

Warning: This article contains references to suicide. 

SINGAPORE — An 18-year-old who killed a fellow student at River Valley High School with an axe on campus was sentenced to 16 years' jail on Friday (Dec 1), more than two years after the incident that shook the country.

In delivering the sentence, Justice Hoo Sheau Peng said: "No matter how severe, depression cannot be a licence to kill or harm others.”

The judge said that the case was "without precedent", occurring in a school environment where young people "ought to feel the safest".

She noted that both the prosecution and the teenager's lawyers agreed that the crime did not warrant life imprisonment, because he did not pose a long-term threat to society.

However, the judge emphasised that the teenager was highly culpable for his actions since he retained control of the situation and exhibited a "chilling degree" of premeditation, cold logic and planning. 

Lawyer Sunil Sudheesan from Quahe Woo and Palmer LLC, who represented the teenager, said that an appeal was likely to be filed next Monday. He added that appeals against sentence would be made on the grounds that the sentence is "manifestly excessive" or "crushing".

Earlier, the court heard that the teenager was driven by depression and suicidal thoughts. He had gone to school with an axe, intending to pick a victim "entirely at random" and carry out a plan that he believed would result in his own death when police intervened in the life-threatening situation.

He intended to hurt more students, but could not bring himself to do so after killing 13-year-old Ethan Hun Zhe Kai, who was a Secondary 1 student at the time.

The teenager, now 18, pleaded guilty to a charge of culpable homicide not amounting to murder earlier on Friday.

He was 16 at the time and cannot be named due to a gag order by the court, as the law forbids the publication of identities of young persons under 18 who are involved in court proceedings.

However, a gag order on the name of the victim was lifted at the request of the victim's parents. 

Mr Mervyn Cheong and Ms Lim Yi Zheng from Advocatus Law, who represented the victim’s parents, said that the parents had asked for the gag order to be lifted because they want to remember Ethan fondly without wondering if they might breach the court order. 

A statement by Ethan’s parents, Mr Hun Yew Kwong and Ms Sng Hui Ching, sent through his lawyers read: “We are heartbroken. We believe many who know Ethan will be, too. Yet, we want to encourage everyone to remember Ethan fondly instead.

“Remember him for his goodness, his kind heart and his peace-loving nature. Remember that he would want us to be happy.”

In sentencing, Justice Hoo said that Ethan's parents had displayed "remarkable strength and fortitude" by saying that they had forgiven the killer. This was in response to the letter of apology from the perpetrator's parents, sent soon after the incident. 

"As Ethan’s parents, together with other loved ones, continue to process the pain and sorrow brought about by his passing, it is hoped that with time, they will find a measure of healing and closure from this tragedy," the judge said. 

WHAT HAPPENED 

Court documents stated that the slashing occurred on July 19 in 2021 between 11.16am and 11.44am at a toilet in River Valley High School, located in Boon Lay. 

The teenager locked himself in a toilet cubicle and took out an axe and a knife that he had taken to school. He then paced in and out of the toilet.

At around 11.30am when the victim entered the toilet, the teenager went out to hang up a tape with black-and-yellow stripes along the corridor to prevent anyone from entering.

He re-entered the toilet, approached the victim from behind and proceeded to slash the boy's head, neck and body. 

Deputy Public Prosecutors (DPPs) Kumaresan Gohulabalan and Sean Teh told the court that the teenager apologised to the victim halfway through the attack and decided to stop his plan of killing other students after seeing that the boy lay motionless. 

The teenager then called out to two to three groups of students and asked them to call the police after the fatal assault. He was later approached by a teacher who asked him to drop the axe. He complied with the request.  

At 11.41am, the accused called the police and said: “I just killed someone with an axe, I don’t know who. Are you going to send someone or not?”

Another teacher arrived and moved the axe further away from the teenager and called the police after entering the toilet. 

Paramedics from the Singapore Civil Defence Force pronounced the boy dead at the scene.

Police officers arrested the teenager at about 12.10pm.

The prosecution told the court that the teenager did not know Ethan and had picked a victim “entirely at random”.

Before the incident, he had contemplated suicide and explored ways of committing suicide from January that year. 

After a failed attempt to end his life in February two years earlier, he came to the conclusion that the only way he could overcome the “psychological barrier” of taking his own life was to commit the offence and induce law enforcement to cause his death while intervening in the situation.

He had also become desensitised to violence and the thought of taking a life after watching online videos. He was suffering from major depressive disorder at the time. 

In February and March that same year, he wrote two poems, which alluded to mass killings in a school and conducted online searches of a similar nature. 

The teenager also bought two axes and a knife from three stores online, a black badminton bag to conceal the weapons and an axe sharpener. However, he did not find the axe to be suitably sharp and thus sent the weapons for sharpening at a store at least once. 

On July 14, a few days before the fatal incident, he planned to carry out a school slashing and took the axe, knife, a roll of caution tape and the badminton bag to school. 

However, he did not follow through with this plan and felt “unsettled” after he was unsuccessful in his attempt at completing his plan of suicide.

METHODICAL PLANNING OF THE ATTACK

The prosecution asked for a jail term of 12 to 16 years' imprisonment, grounded on and the "vicious" and premeditated manner of attack. 

The attack was not a product of a moment of impulse but rather a "methodical plan" to hurt students at the school, where the teenager had conducted research and made purchases to execute his plan, DPP Kumaresan said.

While the offender's mental health condition should be a mitigating factor in sentencing, the prosecution said that the teenager had to take responsibility for his actions and thought process before the onset of his major depressive disorder. 

DPP Kumaresan said that the onset of the teenager's major depressive disorder six months before the incident was only one reason why he committed the offence.

Referring to a psychiatric evaluation done at the Institute of Mental Health (IMH), DPP Kumaresan said that the teenager's nature of keeping things to himself, refusal to seek help and the harmful effects of his "misguided" internet searches were also contributing factors.

The prosecution also refuted the defence's argument that the teenager had "chanced" upon the online videos depicting scenes of deaths including murders and suicides as search engines are designed to filter out such content to protect young viewers. 

In reference to the testimonials tendered by the family and friends of the teenager to the lawyer attesting to his character, DPP Kumaresan said that it was “heartening” to hear others willing to say positive things about the offender. 

While he must be given a second chance to “live like any of us” at some point, DPP Kumaresan said that a predominant consideration for sentencing should be Ethan's life that was taken.  

“The boy will never get to have these testimonials in his favour. We need to remember that a 13-year-old boy’s life was needlessly lost,” he added.

DEPRESSION IN 'REMISSION'

Mr Sudheesan, the defence lawyer, sought a lighter sentence of five years' imprisonment, referring to his client's major depressive disorder as the main factor that caused him to commit the offence.

He first apologised on behalf of the teenager, who he said would have a "sincere and lifelong" remorse for what he had done. 

The teenager's major depressive disorder was the main driving factor of the offence, Mr Sudheesan argued, and that it contributed to his "irrationality of choice" in how he planned to commit suicide. 

His plan was borne of his impression of an "overseas reality" where law enforcement intervened in such incidents with lethal force, which caused him to think that his acts would be a viable plan for suicide, he added. 

Mr Sudheesan disagreed with the prosecution's characterisation of the teenager's plans as methodical and argued that the offender was a young man who "suffered horribly from the throes of depression".

"By all accounts, he was a good boy. He was studious, called caring and generous and displayed good temperament," the lawyer said.

The teenager no longer posed a threat as he is in "full remission" from his depression, he added.

He now has better insight into his mental health condition, attends counselling, takes his medication and receives support from his parents, which is a "safety blanket" against re-offending. 

The teenager was last charged with murder, before it was reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder in February this year. 

This was due to an assessment by IMH doctors who found that he was suffering from clinical depression at the time of the incident, the Attorney-General's Chambers previously said. 

He has been in remand since the incident and had appeared in past court hearings via video-link.  

On Friday, he attended the hearing in person, his head closely shaven and he was wearing a white T-shirt. The judge allowed him to speak with his brother and parents for 20 minutes while the court was adjourned. 

In a ministerial statement addressing the incident in Parliament on July 27 in 2021, Minister for Education Chan Chun Sing gave a chronological account of the incident. 

Mr Chan said that a psychological support post had been set up on the day after the incident to provide support to staff and students who needed immediate help. 

He added that the Ministry of Education (MOE) would make an effort to strengthen its mental health support network in schools and aimed to deploy more than 1,000 teacher-counsellors in the next few years. 

In July last year, MOE announced in a statement that River Valley High now had more counsellors and conducts well-being awareness talks for its students.

The ministry also said that a student development hub had been set up to provide one-stop access to wellness services alongside an activity centre that provides spaces for student-led activities. 

These measures have had a positive impact on River Valley High students and the ministry would continue to provide all necessary support to the school, it added. 

The punishment for committing culpable homicide not amounting to murder is life imprisonment with caning, or a jail term of up to 20 years with a fine or caning.

WHERE TO SEEK HELP

If you, or anyone you know might want to talk to someone, you can reach out to one of the helplines below. 

Samaritans of Singapore: 1767 (call), 9151 1767 (WhatsApp text) and over email at pat [at] sos.org.sg.

Youthline (for individuals up to 35 years old): +65 6436 6612 (call), +65 8533 9460 (text) and over email at hello [at] youthline.sg. 

Touchline by Touch Community Services: 1800 377 2252

National Care Hotline: 1800-202-6868