Murderer spared death now asks for release from life term
28 Nov 2011
SOURCE: The Straits Times
HE WAS spared the gallows 13 years ago after being given a presidential pardon.
Now convicted murderer K. Mathavakannan, 33, is battling to be released from his life sentence as well.
His case at the High Court raises important legal questions surrounding the issue of what life in jail actually means.
Mathavakannan was condemned to hang for murdering a gangster in 1996 at the age of 18.
After two years on death row, he was pardoned by former president Ong Teng Cheong, on the advice of the Cabinet, and given life imprisonment instead.
Had his reprieve come slightly earlier, this would have meant serving 20 years, with the possibility of release for good behaviour two-thirds of the way through.
However, it happened just after the Court of Appeal made a landmark ruling that a life sentence meant staying in jail for life.
Mathavakannan is now arguing that this judgment should not apply to him.
His lawyers point out that the judge who made the landmark ruling said it related only to offences committed after Aug 20, 1997.
Mathavakannan carried out the murder in 1996.
He claims that this means his sentence should last 20 years, making him eligible for early release.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers, on the other hand, is understood to argue that his life term took effect on April 28, 1998, the day he was granted the presidential clemency.
This would mean he is covered by the Court of Appeal ruling and must stay in jail for the rest of his natural life – although from the 20-year point onwards, an independent board would review the sentence every year.
The landmark judgment in 1997 involved the case of Abdul Naser Amer Hamsah, who had been sentenced to life behind bars for kidnapping.
It led former chief justice Yong Pung How to rule “once and for all” that a life term meant life.
In doing so, he reversed a four-decades-long practice of equating this sentence with 20 years in prison.
But in the interest of justice and fairness, he said this ruling would not affect those already serving their life sentences or awaiting trial.
This is why Mathavakannan’s lawyer Subhas Anandan now wants the High Court to rule that his client’s sentence is covered by the law as it stood in 1996, before the landmark ruling.
A hearing on the case will be held this week.
Life sentences are usually meted out to killers and kidnappers.
However, they can also apply to other common crimes under the penal code, including criminal breach of trust by a public servant, forging of banknotes and unnatural sex offences.
28 Nov 2011
SOURCE: The Straits Times
HE WAS spared the gallows 13 years ago after being given a presidential pardon.
Now convicted murderer K. Mathavakannan, 33, is battling to be released from his life sentence as well.
His case at the High Court raises important legal questions surrounding the issue of what life in jail actually means.
Mathavakannan was condemned to hang for murdering a gangster in 1996 at the age of 18.
After two years on death row, he was pardoned by former president Ong Teng Cheong, on the advice of the Cabinet, and given life imprisonment instead.
Had his reprieve come slightly earlier, this would have meant serving 20 years, with the possibility of release for good behaviour two-thirds of the way through.
However, it happened just after the Court of Appeal made a landmark ruling that a life sentence meant staying in jail for life.
Mathavakannan is now arguing that this judgment should not apply to him.
His lawyers point out that the judge who made the landmark ruling said it related only to offences committed after Aug 20, 1997.
Mathavakannan carried out the murder in 1996.
He claims that this means his sentence should last 20 years, making him eligible for early release.
The Attorney-General’s Chambers, on the other hand, is understood to argue that his life term took effect on April 28, 1998, the day he was granted the presidential clemency.
This would mean he is covered by the Court of Appeal ruling and must stay in jail for the rest of his natural life – although from the 20-year point onwards, an independent board would review the sentence every year.
The landmark judgment in 1997 involved the case of Abdul Naser Amer Hamsah, who had been sentenced to life behind bars for kidnapping.
It led former chief justice Yong Pung How to rule “once and for all” that a life term meant life.
In doing so, he reversed a four-decades-long practice of equating this sentence with 20 years in prison.
But in the interest of justice and fairness, he said this ruling would not affect those already serving their life sentences or awaiting trial.
This is why Mathavakannan’s lawyer Subhas Anandan now wants the High Court to rule that his client’s sentence is covered by the law as it stood in 1996, before the landmark ruling.
A hearing on the case will be held this week.
Life sentences are usually meted out to killers and kidnappers.
However, they can also apply to other common crimes under the penal code, including criminal breach of trust by a public servant, forging of banknotes and unnatural sex offences.
