Other than the death penalty issues in Singapore, Kho Jabing had also had an effect on the requirements of the Singaporean courts to reopen concluded criminal appeals and cases, which made its first effect on an unrelated capital case on 2 August 2017,[3] leading to the acquittal of 34-year-old Nigerian citizen and alleged drug trafficker Ilechukwu Uchechukwu Chukwudi on 17 September 2020.

After this, in 2007, Kho decided to leave Sarawak and move to Singapore to find employment, in hopes of earning a higher income to provide a better life for his family.

[13] Kho testified that he only struck the deceased twice, but claimed he did not know the force exerted or where he aimed at; the prosecution later indicated that he said so in his police statements that he hit the victim on the head twice.

Kho also insisted that he did not have the intention to kill Cao Ruyin, but only to rob him, stating that he felt deep remorse for causing the death of the victim.

Justice Kan stated that Galing's participation in the robbery was an indication that he knew that his accomplice's actions were likely to cause death and thus he would have to bear the same responsibility as Kho.

Accordingly, Kan J convicted Galing of murder in lieu of the shared common intention to commit robbery, and sentenced him to death together with Kho.

Instead, they convict him of a lower charge of robbery with hurt under section 394 of the Penal Code, and ordered that his case was to be remitted to the original trial judge for re-sentencing.

This discretion is similarly applied to those convicted of drug trafficking, provided that they only act as couriers, suffering from impaired mental responsibility (e.g. depression) or any other conditions.

[23][22] For this, through his newly appointed defence counsel (which consisted of lawyers Anand Nalachandran, Josephus Tan and Keith Lim), Kho Jabing applied for re-sentencing.

She raised the fact that Kho possess a high culpability by setting upon vulnerable victims, arming himself with a weapon and using excessive force.

She also said that the crime was concocted out of Kho's greed and committed with a scant disregard for human life, which warrants severe condemnation by the community.

He additionally disagreed with the defence's earlier argument that a life term would be the starting and default position in sentencing when it comes to all cases in relation to its respective circumstances.

Tay also ordered that Kho was to receive the maximum of 24 strokes of the cane, based on the violence he exhibited during his attack on Cao and the resulting grievous consequences.

Proceeding with its appeal on 20 March 2014, the prosecution mainly argued for Kho to be sentenced to death instead of giving him life imprisonment with 24 strokes of the cane, on the grounds that during his attack on Cao Ruyin, Kho had done so in an extremely vicious manner and did not relent even after Cao Ruyin was knocked down by the first blow and continued to assault him repeatedly.

From the verdict, Chao said, "Even if we were to accept the position that it was unclear as to how many times the Respondent had struck the head of the deceased, what is vitally important to bear in mind is that what we have here was a completely shattered skull.

Justice Woo reflected his agreement with Justice Lee's finding of facts through the writings in his own individual dissenting judgement, though he additionally stated that there is some risk relying on Galing's evidence due to the discrepancies in his evidence to the police and on court and that he might be inclined to concoct some of it to deflect blame from himself for Cao's unfortunate death.

The last time when clemency was granted was in April 1998 when 19-year-old Mathavakannan Kalimuthu's death sentence was commuted to life imprisonment by then President Ong Teng Cheong.

In rebuttal, the prosecution pointed out that Kho had given a testimony in the original trial on how many times he hit the victim and the degree of force he exerted during the assault.

Not only that, DPP Francis Ng of the AGC, who was the prosecutor at the appeal ruling, described Kho's case at this moment was "a disappointed litigant's attempt to convince the court to revisit a point that has been thoroughly considered".

Justice Chao Hick Tin stated in the judges' verdict that the defence had rehashed their arguments and produced little new material, much less compelling ones to sufficiently made them re-consider their earlier decision to sentence Kho to death.

[80] On the same day itself, Kho's other lawyer Jeanette Chong-Aruldoss, an opposition politician from Singapore, separately tried to seek a stay of execution after filing a civil application and appealing to Judicial Commissioner Kannan Ramesh, but it was dismissed.

[85] At 3.30 pm on the Friday afternoon of 20 May 2016, more than eight years after the murder of Cao Ruyin, and merely hours after the dismissal of his final appeal, 32-year-old Kho Jabing was hanged at Changi Prison.

Fadlon also added that Kho had recited the Surah Yasin (prayer) before his death, requesting his friends to perform haj on behalf of him and prayed that his family would receive the guidance of Islam.

Many users of Facebook were angered at the tribute's publication; many of them posted furious comments, accusing the activist for romanticising the deceased Kho and giving the convicted killer a hero treatment while not paying the same respect to the murdered victim Cao Ruyin.

They considered the conduct of the lawyers amounted to an abuse of process since the case of Kho Jabing was already exhausted of all avenues of appeal and that there were repeatedly old arguments in all the last-bid attempts to save his life.

Dodwell also said that there is a firm belief among lawyers that Kho did not deserve capital punishment, and in his own words, he added, "So we mounted a constitutional challenge.

[98] On 15 November 2016, five months after the hanging of Kho Jabing, there was a lecture titled "Recalibration of the Death Penalty Regime: Origin, Ramifications and Impact", sponsored by a law firm (Withers KhattarWong), at its auditorium in Raffles Place.

Regarding the 3-2 decision of the Court of Appeal (which led to Kho Jabing being sentenced to hang again), Justice Chong pointed out that the five-judge panel was unanimous on the principle involved and adopted even though it was "divided on the outcome".

Justice Chong also said it is arguable whether the Court of Appeal, in its 2015 decision, should have established a balance sheet of aggravating and mitigating factors, which could be taken into account in exercising discretion.

Justice Chong also did not neglect to make it clear that the courts would still have to examine all the facts and circumstances of every case to determine whether a death sentence is appropriate.