Man admits throwing bottle that struck and killed 73-year-old man at Spottiswoode condominium

SINGAPORE: After consuming alcohol, a man looked down at a group of people having a barbecue by the pool two floors down from his condominium unit and threw a wine bottle towards them.

The bottle struck the head of a 73-year-old man, killing him, before ricocheting and striking the shoulder of the man's wife, injuring her.

Australian Andrew Gosling, 49, admitted to his crimes on Friday (Feb 25). 

He told the police that he wanted to startle the group, who were from the Malay Muslim community. 

The court heard that he was also "angry and upset" at attacks committed by fundamentalist groups in Bali and Melbourne that had killed Australian citizens. But his lawyer argued that while he was guilty of throwing the bottle, this was not a religious hate crime.

Gosling, who has been remanded for more than two years and five months, pleaded guilty to a charge each of causing death by a rash act and causing grievous hurt by a rash act.

The court heard that Gosling entered Singapore in July 2019 to seek employment and subsequently rented a unit at the Spottiswoode 18 condominium in Tanjong Pagar.

On Aug 18, 2019, he had a pint of beer at lunch with an acquaintance, before returning to the condominium where he went for a swim. He noticed a group of people having a barbecue on the fifth floor next to the pool.

After his swim, Gosling had dinner at a hawker centre, where he had two bottles of beer. He went back to his unit where he drank another can of beer at the balcony of his seventh-floor unit overlooking the pool.

He observed that the people at the barbecue were from the Malay Muslim community, as there were women wearing headscarves, the prosecutor said.

Gosling had admitted during police investigations that he thought of using a weapon such as a gun to shoot at the group, but dismissed this thought as he thought it would be a "heinous act".

Sometime after 8pm, he went to the rubbish chute at the lift lobby on the seventh floor to dispose of his garbage. As he did so, he saw 12 to 15 people downstairs having a barbecue.

He found an empty wine bottle that was about 30cm long at the chute and held it by its neck, raising it before flinging it downwards and aiming it at where the tables and barbecue area were located.

The bottle struck the victim on his head, before ricocheting and hitting his wife on her shoulder. It then landed unbroken on the ground.

Gosling shouted religiously charged vulgarities before running back to this unit, the prosecution said.

VICTIM COLLAPSED, WIFE INJURED

The victim collapsed to the ground and was unconscious, the court heard. His 69-year-old wife was also taken to hospital when she could not raise her arm.

The victim suffered multiple skull fractures and extensive bleeding in his brain and died the next morning. The cause of his death was determined to be head injuries.

After the incident, about 25 police officers were deployed to the condominium. When they spoke to Gosling, he repeatedly denied hearing any commotion, claiming he was in his unit.

He was shown the bottle in a subsequent interview, but lied that he had never seen it although he recognised it. It was only after he had given DNA and fingerprint samples that he realised he might be traced to the bottle and turned himself in.

This was on Aug 28, 2019, 10 days after the incident. In the meantime, the police had conducted more than 200 interviews on-site with condominium residents, recorded multiple statements and obtained 92 DNA swabs and fingerprint samples.

Gosling was assessed by a psychiatrist from the Institute of Mental Health and found to have been intoxicated around the time of the offence. He has a past history of anxiety disorder, but no contributory link was found between his mental condition and the offence. 

A second report issued jointly with the defence's psychiatrist stated that Gosling was inebriated, but that the amount of alcohol was within his usual limits and not enough to remove his culpability for the offence.

The level of alcohol did contribute to the offence, the report stated, and Gosling experienced some impairment of judgment, but this did not affect his soundness of mind.

According to the report, he was prone to having "obsessive" negative thoughts in relation to Muslims when he was intoxicated, but this did not reflect his true feelings.

THE IMPACT ON THE VICTIM'S WIFE

The victim's wife had her arm in a sling for about two months.

She had been married to the victim for 45 years at the time and had four children with him, but is now living alone. Before his death, the victim worked as a van driver for a delivery company and would give his wife S$600 for monthly expenses.

She now keeps herself busy in order not to think about her husband and cooks dinner daily for all her children to fill the void caused by her husband's death, the court heard.

She feels a big loss and even more so during the fasting month and family gatherings, the prosecutor said.

Deputy Public Prosecutor G Kannan asked for seven years' jail for Gosling, saying that the seriousness of the matter was not truly captured in the description of the offences as a rash act.

"This was no random rash act," he said, saying that Gosling had hostile thoughts towards Muslims and acted on those thoughts by aiming the bottle at the table.

"His conduct is quite frankly appalling," said Mr Kannan, adding that any offender who "commits an offence involving racial or religious hostility must receive just desserts".

He urged the court to consider the ancillary harm caused to the victim's wife, who bears "the emotional scars of witnessing her husband dying" from "a sudden, unprovoked and senseless attack".

NOT A RELIGIOUS HATE CRIME: DEFENCE

Gosling was represented by lawyers Gloria James-Civetta, N Sreenivasan and Selvarajan Balamurugan. Senior Counsel Sreenivasan said Gosling is guilty, and that what he did is terrible, "no doubt about it".

However, he said the question is whether this was a religious hate crime, and if there was "repentance". He said the "religiously terrible statements" were not heard by anyone else and came only from two places: What Gosling told the investigating officer, and what he told the psychiatrist.

"It's a voluntary admission to his state of mind and his thoughts," said Mr Sreenivasan.

He pointed to the joint psychiatric report prepared by both the prosecution's and defence's psychiatrists, which stated that Gosling's thoughts were not genuinely reflective of any anti-Muslim sentiments.

Mr Sreenivasan read out a letter in open court that Gosling had written to the victim's family. 

In his letter, Gosling offered his "heartfelt apology" and said he wanted to share his "thoughts of sincere remorse and compassion".

"Please receive my remorse and grievance to wife, son and family. There's not a day goes by where you are not in my thoughts and prayers. I trust in your heart and prayers for forgiveness - this I hold for the rest of my life," wrote Gosling.

He added that he was "prepared for SG penance and rehabilitation in Changi Prison" and said his actions had "far-reaching impact" on family and loved ones.

"I'm reading this out in open court because I understand the family is in court and I don't know whether this letter reached the family," said the lawyer. "But my instructions are very clear - this is what Andrew Gosling wants to tell the family. So are we really looking at the religious bigot who is going to bring our whole society into collapse? I think not."

Gosling was emotional at this point, wiping his face.

His lawyer quoted a post by the victim's nephew, in which the latter asked for a "fair judgment" with no bias to Gosling because he is a foreigner.

In response, the prosecutor said this post was not representative of the victim's immediate family, whereas the victim's wife described the impact of the crimes on her. Nowhere in her victim impact statement did she say she forgave the accused, said the prosecutor.

He maintained that there was a demonstration of religious hostility by Gosling.

After nearly a full day of arguments, the judge said he needed time to consider the case and adjourned sentencing to April.

The victim's family, who attended the hearing, declined comment when approached by CNA.

In a statement after the hearing, the Attorney-General's Chambers said the available evidence showed that Gosling intended for the bottle to smash onto the ground and startle the group. 

The evidence did not indicate that he intended or knew his actions would likely cause death, or intended to cause injuries that were likely to cause death. It also did not indicate that Gosling knew his act of throwing the bottle was so imminently dangerous that it must in all probability cause death or injuries likely to cause death. 

"Had there been such evidence, Gosling would have been liable for more serious actions," said AGC.