Tan Ping Koon

On 6 September 2004, 35-year-old Tan Ping Koon and 42-year-old Chua Ser Lien stood trial at the High Court for the kidnapping of the seven-year-old girl. In his trial, Tan was represented by Subhas Anandan, then the most famous criminal lawyer in Singapore, who was known for representing notorious criminals like Anthony Ler (who manipulated a 15-year-old student to murder his wife) in several high-profile cases.[18] Chua, on the other hand, was represented by another lawyer named Lee Teck Leng in both his and Tan's joint trial. Both men initially submitted there was no case to answer since during the abduction of the child, they did not demand for ransom despite having the intention to. After a discussion with their lawyers, both Tan and Chua changed their minds and decided to plead guilty.[19][20][21][22]

In his submissions, Anandan argued that Tan should not be sentenced to death (the maximum punishment for kidnapping), and he instead submitted that Tan should be given a life sentence for his crime. He argued that both his client and Chua should be regarded as having pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity as they did not do so on the first day of trial only because of the then unresolved legal issue, and their decision to plead guilty had spared the girl the need to recount her traumatic experience on the stand.[2][23]

Anandan also added that the kidnapping was committed by Tan out of desperation to pay his debts and recounted his personal background, and submitted the psychiatrist Dr Gwee Kok Peng's diagnosis report (dated March 2004) to highlight Tan's psychiatric state. While in remand, Dr Gwee found that at the time of the offence, Tan had depression, epilepsy and low IQ, and these were severe enough to impair his judgement and led to more difficulty on Tan's part to manage his stressors, and should Tan receive proper care and treatment while in prison, he would recover. In Dr Gwee's words, he made a conclusion on Tan's psychiatric state, "Given his low intelligence, poor verbal reasoning, planning difficulties and concrete thinking, he had difficulty coping with the multiple stressors at the time. Adding that to the hopelessness aggravated by his depression, he tended to resort to desperate, short-sighted measures." From this, Anandan sought mercy for Tan and asked that he should not receive caning due to the victim's lack of injury and the relatively short period of time the girl was held hostage.[2][24][25]

Chua's defence counsel also took a similar defence strategy to plead to the trial court to spare Chua from the death penalty on account of his severe bipolar disorder symptoms and various extenuating circumstances in his case.[2][26][27][28]

On 9 September 2004, the trial judge Tay Yong Kwang of the High Court sentenced both Tan and Chua to life imprisonment and three strokes of the cane each. Justice Tay accepted the men's psychiatric reports and expressed sympathy for their financial troubles, but he nonetheless criticized the men for targeting a child and stated that both defendants, who were parents themselves, should understand more than anyone the grief of any parent whose child goes missing. Justice Tay also pointed out that while the men did release the girl shortly after the abduction, they did it not out of a change of heart but due to their "sheer hard luck", and they tried to extort money from the family under threats of their safety despite the failure. Justice Tay also found there was meticulous planning made by both men (especially Chua, the "more brainy one" in Justice Tay's words) to commit the crime since they discussed it for over a week and look for the right timing to strike. Still, Justice Tay refrained from imposing the death sentence given both defendants' respective mental disorders and the lack of weapons and no harm was done to the girl during the kidnapping, and thus decided that it was sufficient to punish the men with life terms and caning of three strokes to "convey the message that kidnapping, especially of vulnerable victims, is likely to be visited with painful consequences." The passers-by who helped the girl and the police were all commended for their efforts to help the girl and ensuring the kidnappers be caught within a short period of time.[2][1][29]

Before they were led away from the courtroom, Tan was allowed to speak to his daughter and younger sister, and he cried as he conversed with the two of them, while Chua, who had only one relative appearing in court, remained silent and calm during and after sentencing.[30] When she was interviewed, Tan's estranged wife commented that if only her husband did not gamble, he would not have became heavily in debt and ended up having to serve his time in jail for the rest of his life.[3] Tan, whose sentence was backdated to the date of his capture (27 December 2003), is currently serving his sentence at Changi Prison. If he served with good behaviour, it is possible that Tan, after serving at least twenty years of his sentence, can be released on parole should he reached the conditions for eligibility.

During his time of imprisonment, Tan's case was re-adapted by Singaporean crime show Singaporean crime show Crimewatch, airing as the ninth episode of the show's annual season in 2004 (the year he was sentenced).[31] Also, during the 17th year mark of Tan's sentence, Chua died at the age of 58 due to suicide in July 2020, leaving Tan the only one of the kidnappers who remained alive while in prison; it was not known how Tan, then 51 or 52 years old, reacted to the death of his old friend.[32][33][34]