Kovan double murder: Committal hearing adjourned

[Prodigy]

Kovan double murder: Committal hearing adjourned

Kovan double murder suspect, Iskandar Rahmat, being brought to the Subordinate Court on 15 July 2013. He is accused of killing car workshop owner Tan Boon Sin and his business son, Tan Chee Heong.

Selina Lum
Thursday, Jul 30, 2015

Photo: The Straits Times

A hearing to determine if there was sufficient evidence for the Kovan double-murder case to proceed to trial failed to reach a conclusion yesterday and was adjourned to a later date.
Click Here

Policeman Iskandar Rahmat, 36, stands accused of murdering car workshop owner Tan Boon Sin, 67, and his son Tan Chee Heong, 42, at a terrace house on Hillside Drive on July 10, 2013.

Wearing black-rimmed spectacles and looking visibly thinner than when he was arrested two years ago, Iskandar appeared to be in good spirits, waving to his family and friends who attended the hearing.

He was in court for a committal hearing, which is a procedure to determine whether the prosecution has sufficient grounds to put him on trial in the High Court on two counts of murder.

The prosecution has written statements from 101 witnesses but there was time for only 76 to be admitted at yesterday's session.

Statements from the remaining 25 witnesses will be dealt with when the hearing resumes on a date to be fixed. Family members of the Tans were also in court.

It also emerged at yesterday's hearing that experienced criminal lawyer Shashi Nathan will be defending Iskandar with Mr Ferlin Jayatissa.

The double murder in the suburban residential area of Kovan shocked Singaporeans in 2013.

The body of the younger Mr Tan was found on the road outside Kovan MRT station in Upper Serangoon Road, after it was dragged for a kilometre under a car.

The blood trail led back to his father's home where the body of the older man was found.

Iskandar, who has been with the police force since 1999, was arrested in Johor Baru after a 54-hour manhunt.

 

[Prodigy]

Kovan double murder: Iskandar found guilty of murder of both victims, sentenced to hang

Published Dec 4, 2015, 11:53 am SGT
Selina Lum
Lee Min Kok

SINGAPORE - Policeman Iskandar Rahmat was on Friday (Dec 4) sentenced to hang after he was convicted by the High Court of both charges in the Kovan double murders.

The 36-year-old was expressionless as the court found him guilty of murdering car workshop owner Tan Boon Sin, 67, and his son Chee Heong, 42, at the older man's Hillside Drive house on the afternoon of July 10, 2013.

Mr Shashi Nathan, Iskandar's lawyer, said his client will appeal the sentence.

Delivering his verdict in a packed courtroom of about 60 people on Friday (Dec 4), High Court Judge Tay Yong Kwang rejected Iskandar's defence and found that he had attacked them "cruelly and relentlessly with the clear intention of causing death".

Justice Tay also found that Iskandar intended to kill the older Mr Tan as part of his plan and found that Iskandar had brought a knife along. Iskandar had claimed that his original intention was to grab the money and run out to the main road to hail a taxi, but Justice Tay said this "inane plan" was unbelievable.

The judge also did not believe Iskandar's story that the older Mr Tan would suddenly turn into a knife-wielding man after welcoming him to his home.

As for the younger Mr Tan, the judge found that he became "collateral damage" and that Iskandar formed the intention to kill him there and then to silence him.

Debt-laden and facing a possible expulsion from the Singapore Police Force, Iskandar had planned to rob the older man, but things went awry when Mr Tan allegedly discovered the ploy.

While Iskandar did not dispute the killings, he has maintained throughout the trial that Mr Tan had attacked him first with a knife, and that he had reacted in self-defence by stabbing and slashing his victim after wresting the knife away.

And when Mr Tan's son entered the house and charged at Iskandar with clenched fists, he retaliated by swinging the knife wildly.

Both the prosecution and defence's closing statements were made on Nov 23.

Pointing to the multiple knife wounds suffered by both men - mostly in the vital areas of the head, neck and chest - the prosecution argued that Iskandar had intended to kill both men.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Lau Wing Yum's case was that Iskandar had wanted to silence the duo so they could not identify him.

In turn, Mr Nathan had urged the court to accept his client account that he killed in self-defence in a sudden fight, and to convict him of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Mr Nathan also argued for Iskandar to be convicted of murder under Section 300(c) instead, if his defences were rejected.

 

[Prodigy]

Iskandar's defence and what the judge said

Police searching in East Coast for evidence during investigations. An area outside the National Sailing Centre was cordoned off as well for the search, which lasted about five hours. Divers were also seen scouring the waters. Iskandar Rahmat had claimed that after killing both men, he threw the knife, with other items, into a canal at East Coast Park. It was never recovered.LIANHE WANBAO FILE PHOTO

Published 57 min ago

The knife

Iskandar Rahmat claimed:

Iskandar said he was unarmed when he went to Mr Tan Boon Sin's house. While he was in the living room, Mr Tan emerged from the kitchen with a knife in his right hand. He managed to wrest the knife away and stabbed Mr Tan, who was tugging at him. After killing both men, he threw the knife, with other items, into a canal at East Coast Park. It was never recovered.

Justice Tay Yong Kwang found:

Iskandar had taken along a knife, which he hid from view. It had always been his plan to kill Mr Tan as he could not risk being identified.

After his arrest, Iskandar was able to sketch a picture of the knife for investigators, even though the knife would have been covered in blood after the stabbings and slashings.

He was able to recall that the knife had grooves and many small circles along its cutting edge.

The clear inference is that Iskandar had time to observe the knife before it became bloody in the continuous stream of events that day.

That could only happen if the knife was with Iskandar some time before the attacks.

When the knife in his drawing was referred to repeatedly during the trial as having a serrated or jagged edge, he did not voice any objection.

But when he took the stand, he said that he was describing a knife with a smooth cutting edge to the police.

Iskandar testified that the circles he drew represented actual circles that stretched from the "end of the knife to almost the tip of the knife", and which were darker in colour.

He said the blade was two-toned, matte along the edge and shiny elsewhere.

The accused was trying to modify his testimony about the knife after having heard the testimonies of Mr Tan's wife that she did not have any serrated knives in her kitchen and Mr Tan's fishing buddy that they did not use such knives for fishing.

'Mr Tan attacked me'

Iskandar Rahmat claimed:

Iskandar had posed as an intelligence officer trying to catch the culprit who stole from Mr Tan Boon Sin's safe deposit box. He duped Mr Tan into taking his money out from the box and replacing it with a fake closed-circuit TV camera. On his return to Mr Tan's house, the 67-year-old accused Iskandar of cheating him as they were no batteries in the camera.

Mr Tan flew into a rage and attacked him with a knife after finding out he had been tricked.

Justice Tay Yong Kwang found:

How did Mr Tan find out the camera was fake? He had dutifully placed the camera in the box as instructed, even after seeing that the battery compartment was empty, as it did not have a cover.

He either did not suspect anything or was satisfied by Iskandar's explanation that the camera did not need batteries. The safe-deposit box was not opened by anyone after Mr Tan put the camera inside.

It was suggested that Mr Tan could have become suspicious after he spoke to (his son) Chee Heong twice on the phone while Iskandar was in the house with him. But Chee Heong appeared normal when he left his office to go to his father's home.

And even if Mr Tan did find out that he had been duped, would he have immediately attacked Iskandar with a knife? Since Mr Tan supposedly held the knife in his right hand, it would have been difficult for him to use that hand to support himself as he went down the three steps from the dining room to the living room as the bannister was on his right. With his bad knees, he would not have been able to move quickly or take Iskandar by surprise such that he had no time to dodge the attack.

The complete change in Mr Tan's attitude was not consonant with the evidence. He had been a trusting and hospitable person from the time he met Iskandar.

Given that he was much older than Iskandar, who was 34 at the time, and due for a knee operation, he would not have chosen to have a one-to-one fight with Iskandar.

The getaway plan

Iskandar Rahmat claimed:

His plan was to grab the bag of money, make a quick run to Upper Serangoon Road, hail a taxi and ask the driver to take him somewhere near where his rented car was parked at the Eunos Industrial Park.

He believed Mr Tan would not be able to identify him - he was wearing sunglasses all the time, used a fake name and the victim was old.

Justice Tay Yong Kwang found:

Even though Iskandar wore sunglasses, the events took place in the middle of the day, not under the camouflage of darkness.

It would be foolhardy to assume that a 67-year-old with normal eyesight would not be able to identify him.

The victim would have been able to describe Iskandar's race, his approximate height and size, that he had claimed to be a police officer and that he knew about the police report Mr Tan had made about the theft from his safe deposit box.

As a former investigation officer, Iskandar must have known that, even if he succeeded in stealing the money, it would only be a matter of time before he was found out.

Iskandar's professed grab-and-run plan involved so many contingencies that only a very foolish prospective thief would adopt it.

There was every possibility that he would be seen by Mr Tan's neighbours during the 190m sprint to the main road. As he did not know that Mr Tan had knee problems, he ran the risk of Mr Tan chasing after him while shouting for help or going after him in his Toyota Camry.

Huffing and puffing, he must also be able to catch a taxi very quickly and avoid alerting the cabby that anything was wrong.

"The accused did not appear to me to be such a foolish person. He would not have come up with such an inane plan."