Public Prosecutor v Gao Xiong

Mr Gao Xiong, a PhD student from China, pleaded guilty in Criminal Case No 63 of 2025 to four of seven charges. He had shared a condominium unit with the victim, a 22-year-old student, and after moving out pursued her romantically despite repeated rejections.

On 9 October 2023 he re-entered the unit against the tenancy agent's instructions, forced his way into her room when she tried to shut the door, pushed her to the ground, pinned her down, grabbed her breast over her dress, removed her underwear and exposed himself, intending to rape her. A tenant heard her screams and dragged him away. He then hit the wall, asked the tenant for alcohol and drank it while she stayed locked in her room until police arrived. This was charged as attempted rape under s 375(1)(a) read with s 511(1) of the Penal Code 1871, with criminal trespass under s 447 for entering the unit.

While on bail he committed two further trespasses: on 10 May 2024 he ran into a State Courts chamber marked "No Entry" during a pre-trial conference, and on 26 May 2024 he returned to the unit seeking the victim's contact details to persuade her to withdraw her allegations. Three other charges, including unlawful stalking, were taken into consideration. He had no antecedents. He appealed against his sentence, and these are the grounds of decision.

1. What sentencing approach applies to attempted rape now that the maximum term equals that for the completed offence
2. How large a discount should be given because the rape was not completed, and at which step
3. What sentences were appropriate for the three criminal trespass charges and which should run consecutively

The judge followed her own approach in Public Prosecutor v Andrew Kumaravel rather than the three-stage approach in Public Prosecutor v Khor Khai Gin Davis [2024] 4 SLR 1012. Since the incomplete nature of an attempt goes to harm and culpability, which are offence-specific, the discount for it belongs right after the starting point is set under Ng Kean Meng Terence v Public Prosecutor [2017] 2 SLR 449, before offender-specific factors and before the guilty plea discount, consistent with the Sentencing Advisory Panel's guidelines.

The offence fell within Band 1. The injuries were not an aggravating factor, as rape is inherently violent, but his conduct after being stopped, staying in the unit and prolonging her fear, justified a starting point of 11 years and six strokes. He went less far than the offender in Andrew Kumaravel and did not attack a sleeping victim at night, so a larger discount of three years and three strokes was given, though he did not desist voluntarily. The judge considered the discount in Davis Khor generous. His clean record was neutral and personal hardship carried little weight. A 20% discount for the plea applied, and the charges taken into consideration did not warrant an uplift.

The trespasses were of rising seriousness: the first enabled the attack, the second invaded court premises, and the third aimed at obstructing justice while on bail. Each crossed the custodial threshold.

The court convicted the accused on the four charges and sentenced him to six years and six months' imprisonment and three strokes of the cane for attempted rape, and two, four and six weeks' imprisonment for the three trespass charges. The attempted rape and third trespass sentences run consecutively, giving a global sentence of six years, six months and six weeks' imprisonment with three strokes, backdated to 9 October 2023 excluding periods on bail.