“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 Judge Chau.
“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.