Case Details
- Citation: [2025] SGHC 260
- Title: Public Prosecutor v Gao Xiong
- Court: High Court (General Division)
- Criminal Case No: Criminal Case No 63 of 2025
- Judges: Hoo Sheau Peng J
- Date of Hearing: 1 December 2025
- Date of Decision / Reasons: 23 December 2025
- Plaintiff/Applicant: Public Prosecutor
- Defendant/Respondent: Gao Xiong (“Accused”)
- Charges Proceeded With: 4 charges (pleaded guilty to 4 out of 7)
- Most Serious Charge: Attempted rape (9 October 2023) under s 375(1)(a) read with s 511(1) of the Penal Code
- Other Proceeded Charges: 3 counts of criminal trespass under s 447 of the Penal Code (9 October 2023; 10 May 2024; 26 May 2024)
- TIC Charges (taken into consideration for sentencing): Remaining 3 charges, including an “unlawful stalking” charge under s 7(1) read with s 7(2) of the Protection from Harassment Act 2014
- Key Legal Areas: Criminal Law; Sexual Offences; Criminal Trespass; Criminal Procedure; Sentencing Principles
- Statutes Referenced (as reflected in extract): Penal Code 1871 (2020 Rev Ed); Protection from Harassment Act 2014 (2020 Rev Ed)
- Judgment Length: 24 pages, 6,554 words
Summary
In Public Prosecutor v Gao Xiong, the High Court sentenced an accused who pleaded guilty to four charges arising from a sustained course of unwanted pursuit, trespass, and a serious sexual assault attempt against an ex-flatmate. The most serious offence was attempted rape committed on 9 October 2023. The court also convicted the accused of three separate counts of criminal trespass on three occasions: 9 October 2023, 10 May 2024, and 26 May 2024.
The court’s sentencing approach reflected the gravity of the attempted sexual offence, the vulnerability and fear experienced by the victim, and the aggravating features of the accused’s conduct, including persistence despite rejection and prior warnings. The court imposed a term of imprisonment of six years and six months for the attempted rape, together with three strokes of the cane. It then imposed custodial terms for the criminal trespass charges, with the sentence for the attempted rape and the third criminal trespass charge ordered to run consecutively, resulting in a global sentence of six years, six months, and six weeks’ imprisonment, with three strokes of the cane.
What Were the Facts of This Case?
The accused, Gao Xiong, was a 31-year-old male from the People’s Republic of China. The victim was a 22-year-old female, also from the PRC. At the material time, the accused was completing his PhD studies in Singapore, while the victim was pursuing her tertiary education in Singapore. They were ex-flatmates: the victim moved into a condominium unit (“Unit”) on 10 July 2023, and the accused was already living there, albeit in a different room. Other tenants also lived in the Unit. Sometime at the end of August 2023, the accused left the Unit.
In early October 2023, the accused began pursuing the victim romantically. He texted her and asked her to go out with him. The victim repeatedly rejected his advances and asked him to stop bothering her. Despite this, the accused persisted. On occasions, he returned to the Unit to look for her, prompting the victim to stay with a friend for a few days. This pattern of conduct formed part of the broader narrative of harassment and unwanted contact, including a TIC charge of unlawful stalking that was taken into consideration at sentencing.
On 8 October 2023, the victim returned to the Unit between about 7.00pm and 8.00pm. At about 9.00pm, the accused went to the Unit to see her. Before doing so, the tenancy agent through whom the accused had previously rented a room (“agent”) had told him not to go to the Unit. The accused went to the victim’s room. The victim spoke briefly to him but refused to engage further, stating that she would call the police. She did so, and the agent also called the police. When the police arrived, the accused left the Unit.
Overnight, the accused remained at the bus stop outside the condominium development and continued to text and call the victim, telling her he would wait for her there. He persisted until the early hours of 9 October 2023. This conduct was linked to the unlawful stalking TIC charge. The next day, the victim took urgent leave from work and mainly stayed in her room in the Unit, setting the stage for the first criminal trespass charge and the attempted rape charge.
What Were the Key Legal Issues?
The principal legal issues in this case concerned (1) the appropriate sentencing for attempted rape under the Penal Code, and (2) how the court should treat multiple criminal trespass offences committed on different dates, including whether sentences should run consecutively or concurrently. Although the accused pleaded guilty to four charges and admitted the facts without qualification, the sentencing exercise required the court to calibrate punishment to the seriousness of the sexual offence and the related pattern of unlawful entry and harassment.
A further issue was the interaction between the proceeded charges and the TIC charges. The court had to consider the unlawful stalking conduct (and other unproceeded charges) as part of the overall criminality, without convicting on those charges. This required careful sentencing reasoning to ensure that the accused’s broader conduct was properly reflected in the sentence while respecting the procedural posture of the case.
Finally, the court had to apply sentencing principles relevant to sexual offences and offences involving intrusion into a victim’s space, including the need for deterrence, protection of the public, and recognition of the victim’s fear and trauma. The court also had to consider the accused’s plea of guilt, the timing of the plea, and any mitigating or aggravating factors arising from the circumstances of the offences.
How Did the Court Analyse the Issues?
The court began by setting out the facts as contained in the Statement of Facts, noting that the accused pleaded guilty to four out of seven charges. Upon the accused’s admission without qualification to the Statement of Facts, the court convicted him of the four proceeded charges. The remaining three charges were taken into consideration for sentencing. This framing is important: it indicates that the court’s sentencing analysis was grounded in the admitted factual matrix, and that the TIC charges were used to contextualise the accused’s overall criminal behaviour.
For the first criminal trespass charge (9 October 2023), the court accepted that the accused entered the Unit despite being previously told by the agent not to go there. On that night, after the victim took urgent leave and remained in her room, the accused returned at about 9.00pm. A tenant let him in after he rang the doorbell. The court found that the accused entered without the consent of the agent and with intent to annoy the victim, including to speak to her about the night before and to ask her to help him find his belongings. This analysis treated the trespass as more than a technical breach: it was linked to the accused’s intent to continue unwanted contact.
The attempted rape charge was analysed with particular attention to the accused’s conduct and intent. The court described how the accused knocked on the victim’s door while she was on the phone with her parents. When the victim opened the door, the accused claimed he had left his bank card behind and wanted to apologise for angry texts. The victim rejected the apology, reiterated that he was trespassing, and said she would call the police. The court recorded that the accused became frustrated and sensitive in response to her refusal and threat to involve law enforcement.
Critically, the court found that the accused prevented the victim from closing the door by tugging the handle, forcibly entered the room, and walked towards her. When the victim tried to push him out, he pushed against her, causing her to fall backwards onto the ground with her back against the side of her bed. He pinned her down, spread her legs, knelt between her legs, pulled at her dress, grabbed at at least one breast over her dress, removed her panties, pulled down his pants to expose his penis, and touched her vagina with his hand without penetration. The accused admitted these actions were done because he wanted to have sex with the victim, to humiliate her, and to “release a bit of anger”. The court therefore concluded that he had the intention to commit rape, satisfying the mental element for attempted rape under s 511(1) read with s 375(1)(a) of the Penal Code.
The court also addressed the interruption of the offence and the victim’s resistance. The victim struggled and tried to push the accused away, while screaming. A tenant, [Q], heard the screams, entered the room, and used both arms to drag the accused away and out of the room. The victim then closed her door immediately. The court’s narrative emphasised that the victim’s fear and the need for third-party intervention were real and immediate, which is relevant to sentencing for sexual offences and attempts.
Turning to the second and third criminal trespass charges, the court treated the accused’s conduct as part of a continuing disregard for boundaries and court processes. On 10 May 2024, during a pre-trial conference held via Zoom, the accused attempted to speak directly to the District Judge. After being advised by counsel to communicate through counsel, he tried to snatch the laptop and ran into a chamber marked “No Entry”. He entered Chamber 8-40 intending to speak to the District Judge, was met by staff, and refused to leave until staff went to get help. The court found that he entered without consent of authorised staff and with intent to annoy them, and noted that he was on bail at the time.
On 26 May 2024, the accused returned to the Unit again. He asked [Q] for the victim’s contact number to seek forgiveness, despite being on bail with a condition not to contact the victim. The court found that he entered with the intention of committing an obstruction of justice offence under s 204A of the Penal Code by obtaining the victim’s contact details to persuade her to withdraw allegations. This meant the trespass was linked to an attempt to interfere with the administration of justice, an aggravating consideration in sentencing.
Although the extract does not reproduce the full sentencing discussion, the court’s stated sentencing orders show the core reasoning outcomes. The court imposed a substantial custodial term and cane strokes for attempted rape, reflecting the seriousness of the sexual violence attempt, the humiliation and physical control involved, and the victim’s fear. It then imposed additional imprisonment for each trespass count, with the third trespass sentence ordered to run consecutively with the attempted rape sentence. This indicates that the court viewed the third trespass as sufficiently distinct and serious—particularly because it was connected to obstruction of justice intentions—to warrant a consecutive component rather than full concurrency.
The court also considered the TIC unlawful stalking charge. The facts show that the accused’s conduct included persistent texting and waiting outside the condominium after being told not to approach the victim, and after police involvement. Even though the accused was not convicted on the TIC charges for sentencing purposes, the court could properly treat that conduct as part of the overall pattern of harassment and intimidation, thereby increasing the weight of deterrence and protection of the victim.
What Was the Outcome?
The court convicted the accused of four proceeded charges after he pleaded guilty and admitted the Statement of Facts without qualification. For the attempted rape charge, the court sentenced him to six years and six months’ imprisonment and three strokes of the cane. For the three criminal trespass charges, the court imposed imprisonment terms of two weeks (first trespass), four weeks (second trespass), and six weeks (third trespass).
In determining the global sentence, the court ordered that the sentence for the attempted rape charge and the third criminal trespass charge run consecutively. The global sentence was therefore six years, six months, and six weeks’ imprisonment, with three strokes of the cane. The accused appealed against the sentence, and the present grounds of decision set out the court’s reasoning for the sentence imposed.
Why Does This Case Matter?
This case is significant for practitioners because it illustrates how Singapore courts approach sentencing where a sexual offence attempt is embedded in a broader pattern of harassment, boundary violations, and unlawful entry into a victim’s living space. The court’s reasoning, as reflected in the factual findings and sentencing structure, demonstrates that trespass offences are not treated as isolated technical offences when they are connected to the victim’s fear, the accused’s persistence, or attempts to interfere with justice.
For sentencing strategy, the case underscores the importance of the court’s holistic assessment of criminality. Even where an accused pleads guilty to some charges and other charges are taken into consideration, the court can still reflect the broader course of conduct—such as unlawful stalking—in the overall sentence. This means that mitigation based solely on the proceeded charges may be limited if the TIC conduct reveals sustained intimidation or escalation.
Finally, the consecutive sentencing component is instructive. The court ordered consecutive terms for the attempted rape and the third criminal trespass charge, signalling that where trespass is linked to obstruction of justice intentions or other serious aggravating purposes, the court may treat it as warranting additional punishment beyond concurrency. Lawyers advising clients in similar cases should therefore focus not only on the statutory elements of each charge, but also on the narrative connections between offences and the victim’s experience.
Legislation Referenced
- Penal Code 1871 (2020 Rev Ed), s 375(1)(a) [CDN] [SSO]
- Penal Code 1871 (2020 Rev Ed), s 511(1) [CDN] [SSO]
- Penal Code 1871 (2020 Rev Ed), s 447 [CDN] [SSO]
- Penal Code 1871 (2020 Rev Ed), s 204A [CDN] [SSO]
- Protection from Harassment Act 2014 (2020 Rev Ed), s 7(1) [CDN] [SSO]
- Protection from Harassment Act 2014 (2020 Rev Ed), s 7(2) [CDN] [SSO]
Cases Cited
- Not provided in the supplied judgment extract.
- Criminal Procedure Code
Source Documents
This article analyses [2025] SGHC 260 for legal research and educational purposes. It does not constitute legal advice. Readers should consult the full judgment for the Court's complete reasoning.