Judge doubles jail term for man who threw cats from Ang Mo Kio HDB blocks

SINGAPORE: A man who received 14 months' jail for abusing five cats in Ang Mo Kio had his jail term increased to two years and three months on Wednesday (Jul 9), after the prosecution appealed for a longer sentence.

Barrie Lin Pengli, 33, had abused cats whenever he felt frustrated or "troubled with his life" and went for walks around housing estates in Ang Mo Kio where he knew there were community cats he could harm.

He began by kicking them, then abducted them in small waterproof bags with little air circulation and releasing them elsewhere or killing them.

He threw two cats off high floors of Housing and Development Board (HDB) blocks, stepping hard on one when it was still alive on the ground.

Justice Vincent Hoong said the lower court's sentences were "overly lenient" and wrongly relied on unreported cases that were clustered around the lower end of the sentencing range.

He added that the lower court had put too much mitigating weight on the cat killer's major depressive disorder.

"Animal cruelty has no place in a just and humane society and will be met with the full force of the law," he said.

He also said Lin had inflicted violence against animals "for his perverse pleasure" and that this was "among the most heinous cases of animal cruelty that have come before our courts".

Lin pleaded guilty in October last year to three charges of animal cruelty, with another two charges taken into consideration.

The prosecution sought 24 months' jail from the start, but Lin was given 14 months' jail by the district judge who took into account his mental condition.

Defence lawyer Azri Imran Tan from law firm IRB Law had stated that Lin had been labouring under major depressive disorder, diagnosed by two psychiatrists, during four of his offences.

Lin was initially on bail but began serving his sentence while he awaited the cross-appeals.

A CRUEL, HEINOUS CASE: PROSECUTION

On Wednesday, the prosecution called for 24 months' jail, saying this was a "cruel" and "heinous" case and that the district judge had erred in placing too much weight on Lin's depression.

"A mental condition cannot be a licence to harm others," Second Chief Prosecutor Isaac Tan said. "The sentence imposed in this case, 14 months' jail, is not one that advances the public interest."

He pointed to statistics on the number of animal abuse cases in Singapore and said "we need to send out a clear signal that animal abuse, particularly cases of repeated and heinous abuse to animals, will be (given) substantial terms of imprisonment".

"This is an opportunity for all of us to lay down a marker," he added. "How we respond to cases of animal abuse is how we want to move forward as a society."

He also said animals are "defenceless creatures" that cannot seek help, but are sentient and capable of knowing pain and suffering.

The cats in this case were "subjected to cruelty, tortured, killed" and maimed for the offender's "depraved satisfaction".

"Changing times require a changing mindset, Your Honour, and we ask that this court seriously consider increasing the sentence."

The prosecutor also argued against the defence's point that Lin was slated to begin home detention soon, saying that this was not a bar to imposing what should be an appropriate sentence.

Lin sat in the dock in a purple prison outfit, listening solemnly to proceedings.

Justice Hoong asked the prosecution if the type of animal being abused should have any bearing on the sentence, but Mr Isaac Tan said the degree and manner of suffering was what is important instead.

"It's going to be very hard to say, if a dog was abused it warrants a higher sentence versus a fish being abused," he added.

Defence lawyer Azri Imran Tan said the defence took the position that the total sentence of 14 months was "fair and just", but said the district judge had erred by running three sentences consecutively.

He asked for no more than two sentences to be run consecutively and no more than 14 months' jail.

"My client's actions are reprehensible. We do not wish to downplay his actions whatsoever," Mr Azri Imran Tan said.

"I think it's also accepted between parties that my client's actions have stirred up significant emotional reactions and outcry from the public."

The defence lawyer added that this appeal "should not turn on emotional gravitas or what the public is interested in or feels".

Both the prosecution and defence referred to the case of Yeo Poh Kwee, who received the maximum jail term under the current law of 18 months for animal cruelty.

He had run down from the 20th floor of an HDB block with his dog attached to him on a leash and left the bleeding dog to die.

Mr Azri Imran Tan asked the court: "How is dropping cats from heights and slamming a cat against a wall, even if it's vicious and I think terrible, comparable with an act of running with a dog with a leash down 19 floors of steps at speed, hitting the dog over and over till it dies, leaving gory bloodstains on the wall?"

He compared it with dangerous driving – while running a red light was "bad", it was "certainly different" from driving against traffic and knocking against other vehicles, the lawyer said.

"My client's psychiatric condition affected his ability to control his impulses. His behaviour was out of character." 

In response, the prosecutor said there were two dogs in the Yeo Poh Kwee case.

"There are five cats here," he continued. By the fifth offence, Lin was no longer belabouring under his mental condition.

"I think the fifth offence exposes his cruelty," the prosecutor added.

JUDGE'S FINDINGS

Justice Hoong said the lower court judge was wrong to consider the case of Yeo as "an outlier that was starkly different" from Lin's case. Instead, it was comparable because both cases involved the deliberate infliction of violence in domesticated animals.

Turning to the offences involving the two dead cats, Justice Hoong said the harm and suffering caused was "extremely grave" because both abused cats died.

"The lives of two sentient creatures were extinguished in a violent and gruesome manner," he said, adding that the pain of the cat that was stamped on was particularly severe since it suffered blunt force trauma.

Lin's nature of offending for these two cats was "exceedingly grave", the judge continued, adding that it was no exaggeration to say it constituted the "quintessence of animal cruelty".

Lin's lethal violence was deliberate and methodical, and the pain and suffering he caused the cats "was not accidental" – indeed, inflicting pain and suffering on them "was the very point" of his conduct.

On Lin's mental condition, Justice Hoong found that Lin knew what he was doing and that he was able to exercise self-control.