Man appeals against attempted rape sentence, says he was in ‘state of confusion’ when pleading guilty

He knocked on the victim’s door while she was speaking to her parents, saying that he had left his bank card and wanted to apologise for the angry messages he had sent.

The victim rejected his apology, reiterating that he was trespassing and that she would call the police. Gao then stopped the victim as she tried to close the door, forcibly entered the room before molesting her and attempting to rape her.

The victim screamed and upon hearing this, another tenant went to her aid and dragged Gao away.

Gao later admitted that he did this because he wanted to have sex with the victim and to humiliate her. 

JUDGES GRILL GAO

The Court of Appeal hearing opened with two independent counsel stating how the sentence for an attempted offence such as Gao’s should be arrived at.

While the two counsel were speaking, Gao interrupted the proceedings by talking into the microphone in front of him. Chief Justice Menon told the interpreter to inform him not to do so and later asked if Gao had any preliminary points to share. 

Gao said that he wanted to argue his case based on his own account of what happened, to which Chief Justice Menon asked him to clarify if he was challenging his guilty plea. 

Chief Justice Menon reminded Gao that when he pleaded guilty, he admitted to the facts read out to him and was then convicted and handed a sentence.

Gao replied that he did not fully understand the facts that were read to him and later on said they were not a reflection of what transpired. He said he thought he would have the opportunity to express his views after he pleaded guilty, and claimed he was not given such a chance. 

“I wasn’t thinking clearly then, I thought I could still retract the document after the judge confirmed my sentence,” Gao said through the interpreter. 

Chief Justice Menon said the law has procedures to ensure an accused person understands the facts before a sentence is pronounced. “But in your (appeal) submissions, you try to suggest that you are asking for a re-trial and so on. It’s not a straightforward matter when you have already entered a plea of guilty,” he said. 

Gao also made several other claims, including that he spoke to the victim daily for about two months before the incident and that she was cheerful and open. Given the “amiable” status between them, he said he felt the incident “would not have caused her monumental personal harm”. 

He also suggested that the housemate who intervened “enhanced the severity” of the issue and interrupted his apology to the victim. Chief Justice Menon pointed out that the housemate had stopped him from raping the victim, and Gao replied that the other tenant was not aware of what was happening. 

Gao also claimed that the victim’s door “caused certain behaviours” and that he pulled it without intending to cause direct harm to her. Chief Justice Menon then asked: “Is he now saying the door made him do it?” Gao replied with a “yes”, saying there was “such a feeling”.

Gao brought up several more points, including that he was talking to another classmate and had a “rejective” stance towards the victim – all of which the judges dismissed as “irrelevant”. 

Chief Justice Menon said: “The high threshold has to be passed before an accused person retracts a plea of guilty. And nothing he said comes close to this threshold.”

Deputy Public Prosecutor Yang Ziliang asked for Gao’s sentence to be enhanced. “He has moved from victim-blaming to what we last heard door-blaming,” Mr Yang said, adding that Gao had taken no responsibility for his actions. 

Chief Justice Menon pointed to Gao’s attempts to distance himself from the facts of the case, saying that he has blamed the victim, the housemate and even the door but not once had he expressed his remorse over what he had done. 

In response, Gao replied that he now recognised that he had committed a terrible act. 

The appeal court’s decision will be given at a later date.