Sex offender gets preventive detention as uncle accuses prosecutor of treating him like animal

SINGAPORE: A repeat sex offender was sentenced to 18 years' preventive detention and 12 strokes on Monday (Aug 7) in a court hearing where his uncle launched accusations at the prosecutor, saying she had treated his nephew like "a caged animal" and asking if she understood what a day in prison was like.

Preventive detention is imposed on recalcitrant offenders in order to protect the public from them.

Mark Kalaivanan Tamilarasan, 44, had contested and was convicted of four charges of aggravated sexual assault, house trespass to commit sexual assault, outrage of modesty and impersonation of a public servant.

He had broken into a flat in July 2017 while intoxicated and attacked a maid who was ironing clothes, before sexually assaulting her.

This was shortly after being released from 16 years' jail for rape.

Deputy Public Prosecutors Chew Xin Ying and Sheldon Lim had pushed for the maximum of 20 years' preventive detention for Kalaivanan, after a report found him suitable for such a punishment.

However, at the last sentencing hearing in February, Kalaivanan's uncle had asked to address the court, before pleading in emotive language for the court to impose a gag order on his nephew's identity.

He also claimed that he had seen his nephew in prison and that he had shown remorse.

On account of this, Justice Pang Khang Chau ordered for another preventive detention suitability report to be prepared before giving his sentence.

The second report had the same conclusions, and the prosecution maintained their position in asking for 20 years' preventive detention for Kalaivanan.

They objected to the defence's request for the sentence to be backdated to take into account Kalaivanan's six years in remand, saying that preventive detention was different from remand.

On Monday, Kalaivanan's uncle again asked to speak. Defence lawyer Foo Ho Chew, who was standing in for Mr Riyach Hussain, said his client is represented and anything should be said through legal counsel.

But Justice Pang allowed the uncle to speak.

UNCLE ACCUSES PROSECUTOR

Kalaivanan's uncle stood and looked at Ms Chew, the lead prosecutor.

"She has already pictured Mark as to what she wants to feel in her heart," he said. "At the end of the day, he is a human being. Does she understand what is PD 20? Even for a year?"

He then asked her directly: "Do you understand what is one day in prison?"

The judge told him not to address the prosecutor, and the uncle turned to face the judge.

"She holds a clear record," he continued. "Her record is so crystal clear, so she doesn't understand what it means for a human being to stay alone in prison for one day, leave alone six years he's spent in remand. He didn't commit this so he can go to prison and (for it) to be considered a staycation."

"She keeps saying the PD report ... (says Kalaivanan has) no remorse," said the uncle. "If he can't change now, can the prosecution tell me - he can change in 20 years' time? That he will be so virtuous, so honest, and will not do anything that is wrong in 20 years' time? If that is the argument?"

He said he felt that Ms Chew was looking at his nephew "like a caged animal".

"In this court he's been treated like an animal rather than an accused. She wanted to tear him apart like a werewolf, you know," continued Kalaivanan's uncle. "Can your honour please consider he's like a human being? He's in his mid-40s already. Do you want him to be his mid-70s, 80s (when he's released)?"

After he was done, the judge told the court that there was no need to address what the uncle had said.

But Ms Chew had two points in reply. First, she said the uncle was right when he said she was not a psychiatrist to diagnose Kalaivanan, but pointed that Kalaivanan had been examined by a psychiatrist on four occasions.

"About the 20 years. Can we guarantee he can change? I actually agree with that," said Ms Chew. "That's why we ask for the maximum."

JUDGE'S DECISION

In sentencing Kalaivanan, Justice Pang pointed to his lack of remorse, "severe denial" and how he minimised his offences. He was also unable to assume responsibility for the sexual offences.

Any expression of remorse by Kalaivanan was "largely centred on the impact" that conviction and sentencing would have on him and his family, said the judge.

To sentence a person to preventive detention, a court must be satisfied that it was "expedient" for the person to be detained for the protection of the public, said Justice Pang.

"The accused has spent most of his adult life in jail," he said. A stint in reformative training had no effect on Kalaivanan.

Both preventive detention reports showed no remorse on his part, and Kalaivanan refuses to accept responsibility for his sexual offences past and present.

He also has a high risk of sexual violence reoffending and recidivism, said the judge, finding that Kalaivanan was a "menace to the public" and "beyond the reach of redemption".

The judge used his discretion to reduce the preventive detention period by two years from the 20 years asked for by the prosecution but ordered that it would not be backdated.

Defence lawyer Mr Foo said Kalaivanan intends to appeal. He said his colleague Mr Riyach would file any application necessary when he resumed taking over the case.