A Chinese national studying in Singapore has seen his jail sentence increased by just over a year after mounting what judges described as a troubling and abusive appeal that sought to undermine the integrity of his original trial. Gao Xiong, 32, originally received six years, six months and six weeks imprisonment along with three cane strokes when convicted in December 2025 of attempting to rape his former flatmate. The Court of Appeal, led by Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, rejected his appeal on July 3 and enhanced his sentence to seven years, seven months and six weeks, with the attempted rape term raised to seven years and seven months.
The case reflects a troubling pattern of predatory behaviour coupled with sustained attempts to evade accountability. When Gao, then a PhD student, first pleaded guilty with legal representation present, the High Court judge exercised meticulous care to ensure he understood the charges and the facts to which he was admitting guilt. An interpreter was present throughout proceedings to facilitate comprehension, and when the judge detected any uncertainty, the trial was suspended to allow Gao's lawyer to clarify his intentions. Despite these safeguards, Gao later claimed he had been confused and lacked proper opportunity to address the court—assertions the appellate judges found entirely without foundation.
What particularly troubled the three-judge panel was Gao's apparent absence of genuine remorse. Rather than accepting responsibility for his actions, he attempted to deflect blame onto others, most notably his victim herself. During the appeal hearing in May, he even suggested that the victim bore responsibility for driving him to perpetrate the crime. Most bizarrely, he argued that the intervention of another tenant, who physically removed him from the victim's room as she screamed for help, actually prevented him from apologising to her—a claim that inverts moral culpability entirely. This pattern of blaming everyone except himself demonstrated what the court characterised as a complete lack of insight into the gravity and wrongfulness of his conduct.
The underlying facts paint a portrait of persistent harassment escalating to violent assault. Gao and the victim, a 22-year-old Chinese national then pursuing tertiary education, had moved into the same shared condominium unit in July 2023. Following his move-out in August, he began bombarding her with romantic advances via text messages. When she explicitly rejected him and demanded he stop contacting her, he persisted with his pestering. His fixation intensified when he returned to the unit unannounced on October 8, prompting her to contact police. He remained camped outside overnight, continuing to message her despite the police intervention.
The situation deteriorated dramatically the following evening when Gao again returned to the unit and was admitted by another tenant. Upon the victim opening her door in response to his knocks, he fabricated a pretext about a forgotten bank card and claimed he wished to apologise for his angry messages. When she rejected both the apology and his presence, closing her door, he forced his way inside. What followed was a violent assault: he pushed her to the floor, tore at her clothing, and exposed himself. Only the screams of the victim and the brave intervention of fellow tenants prevented further violence. The victim only escaped after another flatmate finally called police while Gao remained in the unit.
Following his initial arrest and charging on October 11, 2023, Gao was remanded in custody but later released on bail in May 2024. This proved a grave mistake in judgment. Rather than respecting his conditions and awaiting trial, he embarked upon a campaign to intimidate and manipulate his victim into withdrawing allegations. He discovered she had moved out of the condominium but inexplicably returned on May 26 seeking her contact details. His brazen attempts to access the building and locate her demonstrated a chilling persistence and complete disregard for legal boundaries.
During this period of release, Gao committed additional offences that compounded his criminality. On May 10, 2024, whilst attending State Courts for a pre-trial conference, he ignored posted warnings and forced his way into a restricted chamber to demand access to a judge. His aggressive trespass triggered a panic alarm and required staff intervention to remove him. This incident revealed a man willing to physically confront judicial authority itself, further demonstrating contempt for law and order. These additional charges of criminal trespass were consolidated with his original attempted rape conviction, and he was again remanded following the discharge of his bailor on May 31, 2024.
The appellate court's decision to enhance his sentence reflected both the gravity of the underlying crimes and Gao's contemptuous behaviour throughout the legal process. Judges emphasised that his appeal had plainly constituted an abuse of the court's process. By falsely claiming confusion about his guilty plea despite clear evidence that he had been carefully advised and had understood the proceedings, he attempted to undermine the integrity and propriety of the High Court. The court noted that when his initial claims proved baseless, he compounded the affront by attempting to shift blame to his victim and other parties, demonstrating what the judges characterised as utter lack of remorse.
For Malaysian and broader Southeast Asian readers, this case carries important implications regarding international criminal justice cooperation and the treatment of foreign nationals committing serious crimes. Singapore's handling demonstrates a rigorous commitment to protecting vulnerable residents—in this instance, international students—from predatory behaviour. The case also underscores how sentencing frameworks increasingly account not merely for the primary offence but for patterns of behaviour throughout prosecution, including attempts to obstruct justice and intimidate witnesses. Gao's conduct in threatening his victim's safety and attempting to coerce her into withdrawing complaints likely influenced the court's decision to increase his sentence.
The Court of Appeal also seized the opportunity to establish clearer jurisprudence on sentencing criminal attempt offences. Judges articulated a three-stage framework requiring sentencers to first determine a starting point by examining the actual steps taken during the attempted commission of the crime. This structured approach aims to bring greater consistency to sentencing while ensuring that attempts to commit serious offences receive appropriately serious penalties. The court's reasoning reflects broader sentencing philosophy: the fact that an assault did not achieve its ultimate objective should not substantially reduce culpability when the perpetrator has taken concrete steps toward that objective and only external circumstances prevented completion.
Gao's case illustrates how judicial systems across the region increasingly reject attempts to game the process through dishonest appeals and manufactured defences. His claim of confusion was particularly insulting given the careful procedures followed at his original trial. The appellate judges' willingness to increase his sentence sent a clear message that courts will not tolerate abuse of appellate procedures and will actively penalise bad-faith conduct that wastes judicial resources and undermines the integrity of proceedings. For individuals contemplating similar defences, the case demonstrates that attempting to reverse guilty pleas through false claims will likely result in more severe punishment than accepting responsibility would have entailed.
