Follow us on Telegram for the latest updates: https://t.me/mothershipsg

The jail term for the man who killed a 73-year-old grandfather after throwing a wine glass out from a seventh floor condominium lift landing in 2019 has been reduced by six months following an appeal.

Australian Andrew Gosling, 50, was previously sentenced to five years and six months in jail in April 2022. In addition to the death of the victim, Nasiari Sunee, his wife Manisah Sitri was also injured by the same bottle.

Gosling was eventually sentenced to four years' jail for causing the death of Nasiari by a rash act, and 18 months for causing grievous hurt to Manisah by a rash act, with the sentences to be served consecutively.

Two offences arising from one act

On Dec. 20, 2022, Gosling's lawyers, led by N Sreenivasan, argued that since the offences arose from the singular act of throwing one bottle into the crowd, the original sentences should not run consecutively, Today reported.

The defence contended that the sentences should run concurrently instead, and the judge had erred in its original sentencing, CNA wrote.

It made several arguments to support its case during the two-hour hearing held over Zoom.

Sreenivasan posited that the district judge in the original sentencing failed to take into account that the offences occurred as a result from a single act of throwing the wine bottle.

He added there was no evidence that Gosling had targeted the two persons with one wine bottle, Today wrote.

According to the The Straits Times (ST), Sreenivasan also took issue that the judge in the original sentence did not place enough weight on the fact that two experts had said Gosling's attack was a result of his "obsessive thoughts" when he drank, and did not convey his true feelings.

He also argued that it was not right that the aggravating factors of religious hostility and intoxication were applied twice for each offence to justify the sentences running consecutively.

Prosecution's arguments

Disagreeing with the defence's appeal for Gosling to serve concurrent sentences, Deputy Public Prosecutor Ben Mathias Tan argued that the two victims represented two separate legally protected interests.

“When we look at the invasion of bodily interest, it is victim specific. The harm caused by the two offences is distinct, not part of the same unity", Tan said, ST wrote.

Even if the offences arose from a single act, Tan pointed out that the "profound and irreversible harm" caused to the victims need to be taken into account.

Tan also made the point that Gosling voluntarily causing hurt after drinking was an aggravating factor.

He also argued that it is not the law that one cannot apply the same aggravating factors to two offences. If so, the converse would be true and accused persons would not be allowed to use the same mitigating factors for separate offences.

Justice's decision

Justice Chua Lee Ming disagreed with the prosecution on separate legal interests, stating that just because two victims were involved “does not in and of itself” mean that there were separate legal interests to be protected, according to Today.

However, he also disagreed with the defence that the psychiatric report was disregarded by the sentencing judge, noting that the judge had not taken a position contrary to the findings of the report during the sentencing, CNA wrote.

Chua also questioned the defence, asking if the defence thought it was right for Gosling to be punished once for his offences.

ST reported that in response, Sreenivasan made the point that the sentencing judge must justify why the offences did not constitute a single transaction. The judge should also explain why the single transaction rule is ignored if the offences were indeed considered a single transaction.

Chua dismissed the defence's argument that the one transaction rule should apply here. However, he also disagreed with the prosecution’s point it should not hold because there were two victims.

This is because the two offences involved the invasion of the same "legally protected interest", preventing rash acts that endanger human life. ST also said:

Justice Chua added that in any case the rule should be departed from to give sufficient weight to deterrence to discourage such behaviour or if imposing consecutive sentences would be in keeping with the gravity of the offences.

Justice Chua added: “This is an undisputed fact; the appellant’s conduct did demonstrate hostility towards Muslims.”

The Justice said that looking at all the facts and circumstances of the case, the sentence should not exceed the maximum sentence for rash act causing death, which is five years.

Background

On Aug. 18, 2019, Gosling noticed a group of 15 people having a gathering at the fifth-floor barbecue pit area of Spottiswoode 18 condominium. At 8.30pm that same evening, an intoxicated Gosling left to throw rubbish at the common chute at the lift lobby.

He then hurled an empty wine bottle at the Malay-Muslim family downstairs, ran from the scene, and shouted religiously-charged vulgarities about Muslims. The bottle struck 73-year-old delivery rider Nasiari Sunee, fracturing his skull.

He died the next morning.

The bottle also struck Nasiari's wife, 69-year-old Manisah Sitri, whose arm had to be in a sling for two months.

Gosling initially denied involvement in the incident when questioned by the police, but confessed 10 days later on Aug. 29, 2019.

Gosling admitted during investigations that he had thought of using a gun to shoot the group, but dismissed the thought as a "heinous" act.

During the April 2022 court hearing, prosecutors told the court that Gosling committed the offences as he was "angry and upset" over terrorist attacks by Islamic fundamentalist groups in Bali and Melbourne that had killed Australian citizens

The judge concurred with the prosecutors that Gosling's offences were "religiously aggravated", and was of the opinion that such offences could "seriously undermine" Singapore's racial and religious harmony and must not be tolerated.

Related articles

Top image via 7 News Australia/YouTube, Mohammed Nafis/Facebook