Gao Xiong v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR

[2026] SGCA 29 Court of Appeal 3 July 2026 CA/CCA 28/2025 54 min read
17 cases cited (16 SG, 1 foreign)

Outcome

Appeal dismissed

“…we dismiss the appeal and exercise our discretion to enhance the Appellant’s sentence for the attempted rape offence to seven years and seven months’ imprisonment with three strokes of the cane.”

Source: [2026] SGCA 29, Court of Appeal, decided 3 July 2026. Read directly from the judgment.

Featured in the weekly digest — week of 29 June–5 July 2026 →

Key facts

Court Court of Appeal
Decided
Judges Hri Kumar Nair, Sundaresh Menon, Tay Yong Kwang
Charges / claim Criminal Procedure and Sentencing
Outcome Appeal dismissed
Counsel Attorney-General's Chambers, Nicole Teo Sey En, Tay Jia En, Yang Ziliang

Source: [2026] SGCA 29, Court of Appeal, decided — eLitigation. Updated .

Catchwords

Practice Areas

Judges (3)

Counsel (4)

Parties (2)

Public Prosecutor Respondent
Gao Xiong Appellant

Case Significance

Gao Xiong v Public Prosecutor [2026] SGCA 29 was decided by the Court of Appeal (Sundaresh Menon CJ, Tay Yong Kwang JCA and Hri Kumar Nair JCA, who delivered the judgment) on 3 July 2026. The appellant had pleaded guilty to attempted rape under s 375(1)(a) read with s 511(1) of the Penal Code 1871 and three charges of criminal trespass, and was sentenced to six years and six months' imprisonment with three strokes of the cane for the attempted rape. The court considered the approach to sentencing criminal attempts after the abolition of the one-half sentencing limit, and set out a three-stage approach. It dismissed the appeal but, because the appellant had baselessly challenged the Statement of Facts, reduced his plead guilty discount from 20% to 5% and enhanced the attempted rape sentence to seven years and seven months' imprisonment with three strokes of the cane.

[2026] SGCA 29 explained

Gao Xiong v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2026] SGCA 29) is a Singapore judgment decided by the Court of Appeal on 3 July 2026. It is categorised under Criminal Procedure and Sentencing. It is a recent decision; within this corpus no later judgment has cited it yet. This page summarises what the reported decision covers and links the primary sources — the full judgment, the statutes it cites, and the other cases it engages with — so the decision can be read in context. It is reference information, not legal advice, and it does not state the outcome or any holding beyond what the official judgment records.

What is [2026] SGCA 29 about?

Gao Xiong v PUBLIC PROSECUTOR ([2026] SGCA 29) is a Court of Appeal decision from 2026. Its published catchwords are “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Benchmark sentences — Attempted rape” and “Criminal Procedure and Sentencing — Sentencing — Benchmark sentences — Criminal attempts”, which indicate the subject matter the judgment addresses. The full reasoning and orders are in the judgment itself, linked below.

Which legislation does [2026] SGCA 29 consider?

The judgment refers to Criminal Procedure Code (Cap 68) and Penal Code (Cap 224). The statutes cited are listed in full on this page, each linking to its primary text.

What earlier Singapore cases does [2026] SGCA 29 cite?

Among the in-corpus authorities it refers to are [2026] SGCA 25, [2025] SGHC 260, and [2023] SGHC 304. The complete list of cases cited, and of later cases that cite this decision, is shown on this page.

What did the Court of Appeal decide in Gao Xiong v Public Prosecutor [2026] SGCA 29?

The Court of Appeal dismissed Gao Xiong's appeal against his sentence for attempted rape, set out a three-stage approach for sentencing criminal attempts, and enhanced the sentence to seven years and seven months' imprisonment with three strokes of the cane.

Why was the sentence enhanced in [2026] SGCA 29?

The court found the appellant abused the court's process by baselessly challenging the Statement of Facts he had admitted and blaming others, including the victim. It therefore reduced his plead guilty discount from 20% to 5%, increasing the attempted rape sentence.

Statutes Cited

Cases Cited (17)

SLR (13)
[1999] 1 SLR(R) 826 [2004] 2 SLR(R) 93 [2006] 1 SLR(R) 582 [2008] 4 SLR(R) 500 [2010] 1 SLR 417 [2012] 3 SLR 527 [2014] 3 SLR 299 [2016] 4 SLR 1220 [2017] 1 SLR 505 [2017] 2 SLR 449 [2018] 5 SLR 1153 [2018] 5 SLR 799 [2019] 1 SLR 1289
UK (1)
[2021] 1 WLR 5429

Related cases

Other Singapore judgments involving the same parties or counsel.

Judgment

Read the full judgment on the official Singapore Courts portal.

Read on eLitigation

Source: eLitigation ([2026] SGCA 29)