Singapore's Court of Appeal has rejected an appeal for retrial filed by Gao Xiong, a 32-year-old Chinese national, while simultaneously increasing his prison sentence by more than a year for what the court termed "troubling" and abusive conduct during the appeal proceedings. The July 3 decision represents a rare instance where a court has enhanced a sentence specifically due to a defendant's behaviour on appeal rather than facts related to the original offence.
Gao was originally sentenced by the High Court on December 1, 2025, to six years, six months and six weeks imprisonment, along with three strokes of the cane, after pleading guilty to one count of attempted rape and three counts of criminal trespass. The updated sentence now stands at seven years, seven months and six weeks, with the jail term for attempted rape increased from six years and six months to seven years and seven months, while the six-week term for the most serious trespass charge remained unchanged.
The case originated from events in 2023 when Gao, then a PhD student, shared accommodation with the victim, a 22-year-old Chinese national pursuing tertiary studies in Singapore, in a condominium unit. After moving out in late August, he began persistently texting the victim in early October to request dates. Despite her explicit rejection and requests for him to cease contact, he continued to harass her. The pattern of unwanted pursuit escalated when he returned to the unit on October 8, remaining outside overnight after police arrived and continuing to send text messages.
The attempted rape occurred on October 9 when Gao returned to the condominium unit and gained entry through another tenant. Using a pretext about retrieving a forgotten bank card and apologizing for previous angry messages, he gained access to the victim's room. Upon entering, he forced his way past her attempts to close the door, pushed her to the floor, pulled at her clothing and exposed himself. The assault ended only when another tenant heard her screams and physically removed him from the room. The victim subsequently contacted police, leading to Gao's arrest and initial remand.
Following his bail release in May 2024, Gao committed additional criminal trespass offences that demonstrated his refusal to accept the seriousness of his situation. While attending a pre-trial conference at the State Courts on May 10, he ignored a "no entry" sign and forced his way into Chamber 8-40 by entering a room marked as off-limits, only departing when staff summoned assistance. The incident escalated to the point where the panic alarm was activated. During the same period, he returned to the condominium unit in May multiple times, attempting first to persuade his victim to withdraw allegations against him and later seeking her contact information after learning she had relocated.
During the original High Court proceedings where he pleaded guilty, Gao was represented by counsel and had an interpreter present to ensure his comprehension of the charges and evidence. The presiding judge demonstrated meticulous procedure, standing down proceedings to allow his lawyer to confirm his understanding and willingness to enter a guilty plea. The court accepted his plea only after ensuring his full grasp of the charges and the statement of facts.
At the appeal hearing on May 12, however, Gao appeared without legal representation and pursued a dramatically different narrative. He claimed confusion regarding his guilty plea and alleged he was not afforded the opportunity to address the court. Most troublingly, he shifted blame for his criminal conduct onto his victim, suggesting she was responsible for his actions. He further attempted to fault the tenant who intervened to stop the assault, contending that this intervention prevented him from offering an apology to the victim, thereby suggesting the interruption itself constituted a wrongdoing against him.
The three-judge appellate panel, comprising Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Justice Tay Yong Kwang and Justice Hri Kumar Nair, characterized his appeal arguments as "baseless claims" that sought to undermine the integrity and propriety of the High Court proceedings. The court found that Gao's conduct "plainly constituted an abuse of the court's process" and represented an attempt to discredit proceedings during which he had explicitly acknowledged his guilt. The judgment noted that he "utterly lacked any insight into or remorse for his offending behaviour."
Beyond attributing blame to others, Gao minimized the harm inflicted upon his victim, a pattern the appellate court identified as demonstrating fundamental deficiencies in his understanding of culpability. The court's decision to enhance the sentence specifically for appellate misconduct establishes judicial precedent regarding the consequences of making unfounded claims that attack the legitimacy of earlier proceedings. This approach serves to protect the integrity of the court system by discouraging defendants from manufacturing false narratives about prior judicial processes.
The appellate judgment also introduced a three-stage sentencing framework applicable to criminal attempt offences, with the first stage requiring judges to determine a starting sentence by evaluating the actual steps undertaken in the attempt. This framework is expected to provide consistency in sentencing across future attempted crime cases in Singapore. For Malaysian observers, the decision underscores how Commonwealth jurisdictions apply increased accountability when defendants demonstrate contempt for the judicial process itself, particularly when they fabricate claims about their earlier conduct in court.
The case carries broader implications for regional criminal justice, reflecting how courts increasingly penalize not merely the criminal conduct itself but also the manner in which defendants engage with legal proceedings. Gao's trajectory from guilty plea to baseless appeal claims to enhanced sentencing illustrates judicial determination to maintain process integrity. His behaviour during bail—the State Courts intrusion and repeated return visits to contact the victim—demonstrated that initial legal consequences had failed to deter further misconduct, thereby justifying the more substantial custodial term imposed by the appellate court.
