Extradition and trial of Audrey Ong After Audrey Ong and Michael McCrea were arrested in
Melbourne,
Australia, the Singaporean authorities were notified and they thus issued extradition orders for both McCrea and Ong to stand trial in Singapore. Ong was the first to be extradited and arrived in Singapore on 10 November 2002. She pleaded guilty to two charges of causing evidence of a capital offence to disappear, and on 8 February 2003, Ong was sentenced to a total of 12 years' imprisonment, which consisted of two consecutive terms of six years, to which each term was applied to each charge. Despite Ong's lawyer Jeffrey Soh's plea for leniency on account of his client's voluntary surrender and willingness to testify against McCrea, District Judge Richard Magnus did not buy Ong's mitigation plea as he found her demonstrating an utter lack of remorse and having made no attempt to contact the authorities after the murders occurred. He also described her overall conduct as "sordid, macabre, callous, shocking, reprehensible and grossly offensive" in societal standing. Ong later declined to continue her appeal against her sentence despite filing it on 14 May 2003.
Extradition of Michael McCrea However, even though he was arrested together with Ong and an extradition order from Singapore was issued for him, McCrea was not extradited and remained in a maximum-security Australian prison as it is against Australian law to extradite anyone to another jurisdiction if he or she could face the
death sentence, especially since Australia completely
abolished capital punishment in 1985. Given that the charges McCrea was wanted for were capital murder, McCrea would be
sentenced to death under Singapore law if found guilty of murder. For this, the
Singapore government decided to make a bargain: they gave the
Australian government the assurance that McCrea would not be hanged even if he was convicted of murder. The assurance, according to experts, was possible to be fulfilled even if McCrea was found guilty and sentenced to death by the courts, as he would be entitled to appeal to the higher courts of Singapore to reduce his sentence, and further on, if the appeal fails, McCrea would still be given a chance to appeal to the
President of Singapore for clemency, which will commute his death sentence to
life imprisonment if successful. This assurance eventually allowed Australia to approve the extradition on 16 November 2002. However, McCrea initiated a series of legal proceedings to fight against the extradition order, and it took more than three years before finally, his fourth and last appeal was rejected by the High Court of Australia after the first three appeals failed. McCrea was thus kept in a straitjacket for two weeks after the final rejection, to stop him from harming himself. He was brought back to Singapore by flight on 27 September 2005, where he was officially charged with two counts of murder in the
Subordinate Courts of Singapore. He was remanded for psychiatric evaluation in October 2005 after some investigations and was set to stand trial on a later date. A Law Ministry spokesman said at the time with regards to the bargaining in the extradition of McCrea: "Without the undertaking, extraditing McCrea and bringing him to justice is not possible. We will then have a situation where an accused will completely escape trial in Singapore or elsewhere."
Michael McCrea's trial and sentence Guilty plea and submissions On 25 June 2006, nine months after he was extradited back to Singapore, 48-year-old Michael McCrea was brought to trial in the
High Court for killing Kho Nai Guan and Lan Ya Ming. By then, after McCrea's defence lawyer Kelvin Lim made some representations to the prosecution and some pre-trial conferences, the prosecution agreed to reduce the murder charges to lesser offences of
culpable homicide not amounting to murder, which were not punishable by death. The reduction was done not out of the agreement with the Australian government, as the agreement was centered around the reassurance to not hang McCrea even if he was found guilty of murder, but rather from the prosecution's review of its case against McCrea. Not only that, the prosecution also brought up a third charge of causing evidence to disappear against McCrea, who expressed his intention to plead guilty to the reduced criminal charges, as well as the fresh charge proceeding against him. The reduction of the original charges meant that McCrea would not be sentenced to death even if found guilty. McCrea's two culpable homicide charges were second-degree and lacked the intention to kill by nature under Section 304(b) of the Penal Code, the maximum penalty for each charge was ten years' imprisonment, in addition to a possible fine. In his mitigation, Michael McCrea pleaded for a lenient sentence, as he was psychologically haunted by his own conscience and felt remorse for his reprehensible actions. He stated that he and Kho shared a brotherly friendship since they first met in 1998. McCrea also raised out his own emotions and frequent concern for Kho's welfare, which lasted up till the day he killed Kho during their fight, when he asked Kho to go to bed after hearing he was not feeling well from taking drugs during their drinks session prior to Kho's alleged insulting of Ong. The lawyer also asked that McCrea be given a lighter penalty given that the deaths were resultant of a sudden fight and McCrea's exercising of his self-defence, and there was no intention to cause the deaths of Kho and Lan that fateful night, and that McCrea tried to revive Kho upon finding that his heartbeat has stopped. In rebuttal, the prosecution, led by Deputy Public Prosecutors (DPP) Christopher Ong and Wong Kok Weng, asked the court to take into consideration the aggravating factors of the case. Firstly, McCrea's assault of Kho was totally disproportionate to the provocation that arise from Kho's insult of Ong and for this small matter, Kho was being assaulted grievously to the point of injury and death; Kho's smashing of the vase on McCrea's head was merely a response to McCrea's physical confrontation and aggressiveness shown to Kho upon receiving word from Ong that Kho insulted her. For Lan, she was merely at the wrong place at the wrong time during Kho's assault and she was being confined and locked up for witnessing Kho's death. She was completely at McCrea's mercy when she was being wrapped up in cloth and plastic but none were shown by McCrea, and she was still alive at the time the plastic bags were tied around her, causing her to suffocate to death. Also, they pointed out that rather than admitting to his crimes and contacting the authorities, McCrea only cared about covering up his acts and looking for the bonus he paid Kho prior to his death, and even fled the country to escape punishment. For this, the prosecution urged the court to mete out a stiff penalty for McCrea for the Orchard Towers double killings.
Verdict Four days later, on 29 June 2006, High Court judge
Choo Han Teck sentenced McCrea to a total of 24 years' imprisonment. He first imposed the maximum ten-year term of imprisonment for each of the two culpable homicide charges for both Kho's and Lan's deaths and a third consecutive term of four years' imprisonment for causing the evidence of the killings to disappear. Justice Choo stated that he did not buy the fact that McCrea was remorseful of his actions, as he did not choose to surrender and face the consequences of his actions and even flew out of Singapore before the discovery of his crimes and before the authorities could apprehend him. He also stated that McCrea had extensively battered Kho and caused his death over a relatively simple, small matter. Lan's death was a result of McCrea trying to prevent her from leaving the flat, and kicked her in the head before killing her, all because he wanted to find Kho's money in the aftermath of Kho's killing. For this, McCrea deserved the highest punishment the court could give for his first two charges of culpable homicide, and these first two terms were to be served consecutively in view of the separate, distinct nature of the two offences. With regards to McCrea's third consecutive term of four years over the disappearance of evidence, Justice Choo noted that it was lower than the six years Audrey Ong received for each charge of the same crime McCrea was convicted of despite his more principal role in covering up the crimes, but he stated that McCrea faced more serious charges relating to offences affecting life unlike Ong, which made it reasonable should the penalty for this third crime in McCrea's case was lesser than Ong. When responding to the defence's request to backdate McCrea's 24-year sentence to the date of his arrest in Australia four years earlier (or at least to the date of his first day of remand in Singapore after his extradition), Justice Choo stated that he, as a judge, should be taking into consideration the facts of the case before he can exercise his powers of discretion to backdate the jail term. He laid out that for the approximate first three years, McCrea spent them behind bars in Australia while he was fighting tooth and nail against his extradition order, and hence it did not make sense and would be "invidious" for McCrea to serve his sentence four years less in Singapore. Since there were no significant mitigating factors other than his lack of criminal records for violent offences, Justice Choo said there was no reason for him to backdate McCrea's sentence to any of the dates requested by Lim. According to Kelvin Lim, his 48-year-old client was stunned and shocked to hear that his sentence was only effective from the day of his sentencing, and personally to McCrea, the 24-year jail term was quite a "crushing" sentence. Some members of the public, including one who wrote a letter to
The Straits Times (a national daily newspaper in Singapore), felt that McCrea's punishment was too light for him.
Michael McCrea's appeal and outcome Michael McCrea appealed to the
Court of Appeal of Singapore for a lighter sentence. However, the three-judge panel, consisting of
Chief Justice Yong Pung How, High Court judge
V K Rajah and Judge of Appeal
Andrew Phang, were not convinced that McCrea was remorseful of his crimes and thus refused to reduce the sentence. Rather, the three-judge panel nearly considered increasing the jail term, which by maximum, could be raised to three years longer than the original term, as the charge of causing evidence to disappear carried the maximum penalty of seven years in prison (three years more than the four years McCrea received for this offence). Still, the Court of Appeal elected to not do so due to the lack of merit in the appeal, and hence McCrea escaped the worst possibility of serving a total of 27 years in jail. When Lim argued for a concurrent ten-year sentence during the appeal hearing (which will possibly allow McCrea to serve 14 years' jail), one of the judges - Justice Andrew Phang - issued strong words against him for asking for two concurrent jail terms when the case involved two lives being lost. When Lim also raised the fact that McCrea tried to revive Kho, Justice Phang asked Lim, "Your best friend, your brother, is dying. Put yourself in your client's position. What would you have done?" Lim replied, "I would call an ambulance." At this reply, Justice Phang immediately shot back, "Yes. It's common humanity." As such, the appeal ended with dismissal on 23 August 2006. If he maintained good behaviour behind bars, McCrea would be granted a one-third remission of his 24-year sentence and he would be tentatively released on 29 June 2022 after serving at least 16 years of imprisonment behind bars. By then, McCrea would be 64 years old at the time of his early release. ==Aftermath==