A Chinese national's attempt to overturn his conviction for attempted rape has backfired dramatically, resulting in a lengthier prison sentence rather than the relief he sought. Gao Xiong, a 32-year-old PhD student at the time of the offences, had his jail term extended by just over a year when Singapore's Court of Appeal rejected his appeal on July 3, finding that his conduct during the hearing amounted to an abuse of court processes.
Gao was originally sentenced on December 1, 2025, by the High Court to six years, six months and six weeks imprisonment plus three strokes of the cane after pleading guilty to one count of attempted rape and three counts of criminal trespass. The significant increase in his sentence, announced four months later, underscores the judiciary's strong disapproval of his efforts to undermine proceedings he had already consented to in writing. The Court of Appeal, led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon alongside Justices Tay Yong Kwang and Hri Kumar Nair, determined that Gao's appeal warranted sentence enhancement rather than the retrial he requested.
The case reveals troubling patterns of escalating criminal behaviour beginning in mid-2023. Gao and his victim, a 22-year-old Chinese national studying in Singapore, were former flatmates in a condominium unit. After moving out in August 2023, he initiated unwanted contact through text messages asking her out. When she repeatedly rejected his advances and explicitly told him to cease contacting her, he persisted, demonstrating a calculated disregard for her clearly stated boundaries. This initial harassment laid the groundwork for more serious offences that would follow within weeks.
On October 8, 2023, Gao returned to the unit specifically to find her, prompting her to call police. Rather than accepting this clear warning, he stationed himself at a nearby bus stop overnight and continued texting her. The following evening, he gained entry to the unit through another tenant and, through deception, convinced the victim to open her room door by claiming he had forgotten his bank card and wished to apologise. His subsequent forced entry, physical assault, and exposure represented a violent escalation of harassment into serious sexual crime. A neighbouring tenant's intervention likely prevented further harm.
What transformed this serious assault into a case of broader judicial concern was Gao's behaviour following his arrest on October 11, 2023. After obtaining bail on May 2, 2024, he committed three additional trespass offences that demonstrated an almost brazen disregard for legal authority. Most remarkably, on May 10 while attending State Courts for a pre-trial conference, he ignored warning signs and entered Chamber 8-40 where a judge was working, only leaving when staff intervened and a panic alarm was activated. He also returned to the condominium on two separate occasions—May 5 and May 26, 2024—attempting to convince his victim to retract her allegations or extract her contact information. This pattern suggested not rehabilitation but an escalating determination to interfere with the justice process itself.
During his appeal hearing on May 12, Gao appeared without legal representation and mounted arguments that the Court of Appeal found deeply problematic. He claimed confusion about his earlier guilty plea despite having been represented by a lawyer during the original proceedings, an interpreter present throughout, and a meticulous judge who stood down proceedings to allow his lawyer to confirm his wishes when any uncertainty arose. More disturbingly, he attempted to shift responsibility for his attempted rape onto the victim herself, as well as the tenant who had physically stopped him from attacking her further—essentially suggesting the victim was responsible for provoking his crime, and that the intervention preventing continued assault had wronged him by denying him an opportunity to apologise.
The Court of Appeal's judgment emphasised that Gao's appeal strategy constituted a fundamental attack on the integrity of the original High Court proceedings. The panel noted that every procedural safeguard had been meticulously followed: Gao understood the charges, had legal representation, had access to interpretation services, and had explicitly accepted a detailed statement of facts before entering his guilty plea. His subsequent claims of confusion represented baseless assertions designed to undermine a properly conducted trial. More critically, the court identified in Gao's appeal conduct a complete absence of genuine insight into or remorse for his actions—instead, he downplayed the harm inflicted on his victim and sought to externally assign blame.
The original sentence enhancement affected primarily the attempted rape charge, which was 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. This surgical adjustment focused the court's disapproval on the sexual offence itself while also accounting for the subsequent interference with justice. The case also saw the Court of Appeal establish a formal three-stage sentencing framework for criminal attempt offences, with courts first determining a starting sentence by examining the actual steps taken toward completing the crime—a development with implications for future sentencing across Southeast Asian jurisdictions watching Singapore's jurisprudence.
For Malaysian readers and observers across Southeast Asia, the case highlights both the protections available to accused persons within Singapore's legal system and the serious consequences of attempting to weaponise appeals against judicial findings already consented to through guilty pleas. It demonstrates that procedural safeguards—legal representation, interpretation services, judicial clarification—create records that appellate courts can reference when assessing whether claims of confusion or misunderstanding are credible. More broadly, the case underscores how harassment and sexual violence often emerge from patterns of persistent boundary-crossing, beginning with rejection of explicitly stated refusals. Gao's progression from unwanted text messages to forcible entry and assault, combined with his subsequent attempted manipulation of the victim and court system, reveals how perpetrators may escalate rather than desist when their advances are rejected—a reality with relevance across regional discussions on sexual violence prevention and victim protection.
