Apex court raises jail term for man who killed wife after brief psychotic episode

SINGAPORE — A 70-year-old retired aircraft technician, who brutally killed his wife after a brief psychotic episode, will return to prison after the apex court increased his jail term from two to six years on Wednesday (June 27).

Kong Peng Yee, who was released last October after being locked up for one year and seven months, will have to serve an additional two years and five months behind bars.

Though the apex court allowed the appeal by the prosecution, it stopped short of agreeing that Kong's jail term should be raised to nine years. The final jail term Kong has to serve was set at four years because he received a one-third remission of the six-year sentence.

Delivering the judgement, Judge of Appeal Tay Yong Kwang noted that raising Kong's imprisonment term was warranted to give him "sufficient time to take medication in a disciplined manner".

Kong had his initial murder charge reduced to culpable homicide not amounting to murder following a psychiatric assessment that he suffered from psychotic delusions, which significantly affected his mental responsibility for his actions.

His condition is in remission after responding well to medication, and Kong is currently residing voluntarily at the Institute of Mental Health.

"This will hopefully be of great benefit to him when he is released and returns to live in an uncontrolled environment where he has the choice regarding his medication," said Judge of Appeal Tay, who ruled together with Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon and Judge of Appeal Judith Prakash.

The higher jail sentence will also assuage any public concerns about having a "potentially dangerous man" living in their midst, given that Kong had killed his wife "in a most brutal and violent manner", Judge of Appeal Tay added.

In a horrific act, Kong had lashed out at his wife of 36 years on the afternoon of March 13, 2016, stabbing and hacking her to death — using a knife and hacker — at their four-room Compassvale Crescent flat, inflicting a total of 189 injuries on her body.

At the time of attack, Kong's wife was folding clothes in the living room when he first stabbed her from behind. An autopsy report found that Kong's wife died due to haemorrhage caused by multiple wounds to her face and head, including the scalp.

Kong was then 68-years-old when he committed the offence, while his wife was 63-years-old. The couple has two adult daughters.

The High Court heard that Kong's actions were spurred by delusional thoughts that his family "might want to kill him" and that his mind told Kong to "make sure she (his wife) dies". Court documents stated that he also felt "happy" and stopped the attack upon realising his wife was dead.

The delusions that Kong was facing at the time of the murder could have originated from the severe depression he sank into after suffering from mild physical impairments such as constipation and insomnia, said the psychiatric report.

In its appeal, the prosecution had argued that the High Court had placed undue weight on Kong's mental condition when he committed the offence, adding that he was well aware of his actions, which were brutal and carried out on a defenceless person.

Notwithstanding Kong's mental condition, the prosecution asked for a nine-year jail term to reflect retribution and send out a strong deterrence message given the gravity of his actions.

They added that while rehabilitation is a relevant consideration, this does not "necessitate a lighter sentence".

But Judge of Appeal Tay pointed out that deterrence "should not be a dominant consideration" in Kong's case as his psychosis was "causally linked to the offence and warped his understanding of reality".

As for the sentencing principle of retribution, though Judge of Appeal Tay acknowledged that the harm caused by Kong was severe, "the brutality of the attack in this case was the work of a disordered mind rather than a cold and cruel one".

"(Kong's) culpability was accordingly very low," he noted. "Rehabilitation and prevention were the dominant sentencing principles in this case. Rehabilitating Kong while at the same time preventing him from harming others would better protect his family and the public."