They will donate $2.7m to charity but govt rejects the demand, although it regrets the error in caning the man 8 strokes instead of the 5 ordered.

By Irene Ngoo
Jun 30, 2007
AsiaOne

The family of a 20-year-old offender who was mistakenly given three strokes more than ordered has demanded $3 million in compensation, and says they will donate $2.7 million to charity. But the government has rejected it, saying it is not acceptable.

In a joint statement issued by the Ministry of Law and Ministry of Home Affairs tonight, the government said it "regrets the error and remains ready and willing to settle the matter" and has also offered the case to mediation.

The offender's family, said the statement, has escalated from an initial amount of $150,000 to $3 million, of which $2.7 million would be donated to charity, made on a without prejudice basis.

"This could not be accepted by the Government," said the statement.

It disclosed that the court officer who prepared the warrant of commitment had "erroneously" put in an additional 3 strokes to one of the charges, when the judge sentenced him to a total of nine months and five strokes.

Giving details of the case, the statement said Dickson Tan Yong Wen was sentenced to five strokes of the cane on Feb 8 after he pleaded guilty to two of the four charges for abetting an unlicensed moneylender to harass a debtor. The other two charges were taken into consideration for purpose of sentencing.

For the two charges which Tan had pleaded guilty to, the statement said the judge’s sentence was within the legal range and sentencing power. Tan was sentenced to 3 months' jail and 2 strokes of the cane on one charge, and 6 months' imprisonment and 3 strokes of the cane for the other charge.

These sentences, making a total of 9 months and 5 strokes, were to run consecutively from Feb 6.

The statement said that the "non-contentious" sentence was meted out by the judge, and it was "within the legal range and sentencing power."

"It was a correct judicial decision," said the statement.

What went wrong?

Explained the statement: "Unfortunately, when the warrant of commitment was prepared by the Court Officer - that is, the court clerk who assisted the judge with the administrative aspects of the case - the Court Officer erroneously reflected on the warrant of commitment an additional 3 strokes to one of the charges.

"With this error, the sentence became as follows: 3 months' imprisonment and 2 strokes of the cane (for one of the charges); and 6 months' imprisonment and 6 strokes of the cane for the other charge."

The caning was then carried out on March 29 by the Prisons authority based on the warrant of commitment, which is 8 strokes of the cane.

"The Prisons officers observed all procedures relating to the administration of the caning, including verifying with the prisoner that the number of strokes of caning as specified in the warrant of commitment was correct," said the statement.

It pointed out that on March 1 during Dickson Tan's admission process to prison, he did not raise any objection on the number of strokes of caning he had been sentenced to when he was interviewed by a prison officer.

Said the statement: "On 29 March 2007, prior to the caning, Tan acknowledged on the Inmate's Events Sheet that the number of strokes, that is 8 strokes, to be meted out to him was correct. Again just before he was caned, Tan also confirmed to the prison officers and the Medical Officer who were present that the number of strokes he would be receiving was correct, and did not raise any objection."

It confirmed that that a family member of Tan called on April 2, after the caning was administered, to check on details of the caning sentence.

According to The Straits Times today, Tan's mother, Madam Ho Gee lin, 52, said she visited her son on the morning of the day caning was due to be administered. He told her he was to get eight strokes later that day and not five as ordered by the judge.

"I felt very helpless and upset. My son had told them about the mistake but they did not believe him," she was quoted as saying.

Two weeks later, she visited her son again and found out that the punishment had been carried out.

She said eight strokes meant he was caned by two prison staff, each delivering four strokes, to ensure the last was as forceful as the first.

Madam Ho said she was shocked and asked her 32-year-old daughter to call the officer to check.

The officer, named Kelvin Kwek, told her "it was too late", said Madam Ho's daughter. The officer had since left the Subordinate Courts.

Confirming that the court officer in question had quit as a result of the incident, the joint statement acknowledged: "This incident was therefore a regrettable error on the part of a Court Officer that led to the extra three strokes of caning being imposed on Tan.

"The Subordinate Courts has since taken various steps to tighten the processes. These efforts include checklists for Court Officers in preparing warrants of commitment and layers of additional checks for warrants of commitment," added the statement.

"The government regrets the error and remains ready and willing to settle the matter. The government has also offered to refer the case to mediation. In negotiations so far, Tan's settlement sum has escalated from an initial amount of $150,000 to $3 million, out of which he said he would donate $2.7 million to charity, made on a without prejudice basis.

"This could not be accepted by the Government."

Tan qualified for release under Home Detention and was accordingly released on May 17 by the Prison authority to complete his sentence under Home Detention till Aug 7.

Madam Ho said her son has not been the same since the caning. She said he was more active and talkative before, but is now quiet and withdrawn.

According to The Straits Times, this is not the first such incident.

In 1988, a 23-year-old offender convicted of armed robbery was given 48 strokes of the cane - twice the legal maximum allowed for an adult at a single trial.

He sued the government but the matter was later settled out of court. The cause of the mix-up was not disclosed, and the terms of settlement were confidential, said the lawyer who acted for the offender.

» Have your say on this and other issues in our forum pages