SINGAPORE – A 32-year-old man who tried to rape a former flatmate failed in his appeal for a retrial, and instead had his jail term increased by just over a year for the “troubling” way he had argued his appeal.
Gao Xiong, who was a PhD student at the time of his offences, was originally sentenced on Dec 1, 2025, by the High Court to six years, six months and six weeks’ jail, as well as three strokes of the cane.
He was represented by a lawyer when he pleaded guilty to one count of attempted rape and three counts of criminal trespass.
At his appeal hearing on May 12, the Chinese national, who did not have a lawyer, claimed that he was “confused” when he pleaded guilty and that he was not given the opportunity to address the court.
Gao also blamed the victim for causing him to perpetuate the crime. He even tried to blame her flatmate, who had dragged him away from the woman, claiming that the intervention prevented him from apologising to the victim.
On July 3, the Court of Appeal increased Gao’s jail term to seven years, seven months and six weeks.
The jail term for the attempted rape charge was raised from six years and six months to seven years and seven months. The six-week jail term for the most serious trespass charge was unchanged.
The court, comprising Chief Justice Sundaresh Menon, Justice Tay Yong Kwang and Justice Hri Kumar Nair, found it appropriate to enhance Gao’s sentence on account of his conduct, which “plainly constituted an abuse of the court’s process”.
The court said Gao had sought to undermine the integrity and propriety of the High Court proceedings during which he pleaded guilty by making baseless claims.
There was no doubt that the High Court judge was meticulous and took all necessary steps to ensure that he fully understood the charges and the statement of facts that he fully accepted.
The court noted that Gao was represented by a lawyer at the time, and that an interpreter was present to ensure that he understood the proceedings.
When Gao appeared unclear, the judge stood down the proceedings so that his lawyer could speak to him to confirm that he wished to plead guilty, the court pointed out.
“It is evident from the appellant’s conduct in the appeal that he utterly lacked any insight into or remorse for his offending behaviour,” the court added.
Aside from trying to shift the blame to others, Gao also downplayed the harm which he had caused to the victim.
Read Full Article At Source
