The Tokyo District Court last week sentenced 32-year-old Daniel Mathew Otto, an Australian national, to two years in prison for breaking into the home of a 70-year-old Japanese man in Shinjuku City and injuring him in June last year, according to the Japan Times.
The court’s decision heavily focused on English grammar and pronunciation.
According to Otto’s testimony, he was on his way home after a night of drinking when, around 11:30 p.m., he detected a faint smell of gasoline. Noticing a kerosene can on the second-floor balcony of a nearby house, and seeing the lights on with the sound of a TV playing inside, he climbed up intending to warn the residents.
Otto claimed he picked up a small shovel from the balcony to either knock on the window or pry it open to get the resident’s attention.
However, the elderly homeowner confronted him on the balcony and claimed that Otto said “gōtō da” and “kane wa doko da?” in Japanese, which roughly translate to “This is a robbery” and “Where’s the money?”
A scuffle ensued, resulting in injuries to the elderly man. Otto fled the scene immediately afterward.
After his arrest, Otto insisted he never intended to commit robbery but that his lack of fluency in Japanese led to a misunderstanding.
According to The Sankei FountainOtto’s lawyer argued that what the homeowner heard as “gōtō da” was actually Otto saying “Go to a door” in English, urging the resident to find a door to escape a potential fire. Similarly, the phrase “kane wa doko da?” (Where’s the money?) was supposedly Otto asking, “Can you walk?”
Otto was asked to say “Go to a door” in court, but the judges felt it did not closely resemble the Japanese phrase “gōtō da.”
The prosecution also questioned Otto’s choice of wording, pointing out that in English, it would have been more appropriate to say “Go to the door.” Otto explained that since he didn’t know the house’s layout, he referred to “a door” to indicate any possible exit.
The court ultimately rejected Otto’s argument that he was attempting to warn the elderly man of potential danger due to the smell of gasoline.
As of Oct. 18, Otto had already served 240 days in detention while awaiting the trial’s conclusion. The court stated that this period would be counted towards his 730-day prison sentence, leaving him with 490 days remaining.
Otto and his lawyer are planning to appeal the court’s ruling.
Comments are closed.