Court of Appeal rejects appeal against sentence for Plymouth offences

Background

The Court of Appeal Criminal Division recently delivered its judgment in the case of Rex vs Luke Vincent Rouse, where the appellant sought to challenge an 11-year and three-month sentence imposed by the Crown Court at Plymouth. The appeal was heard by Lord Justice Lewis, Mr Justice Garnham, and Mr Justice Constable.

Initial Sentencing

The original sentence was handed down on 19 January 2018, following Rouse's conviction on multiple charges across three indictments. These included wounding with intent, false imprisonment, burglary, fraud, handling stolen goods, and assault by beating. The offences were committed against a vulnerable victim, Mr Kelly, and involved severe violence and intimidation.

Grounds for Appeal

Rouse's application for leave to appeal was initially refused by a single judge, who found the grounds unarguable and noted an unjustified delay in filing the appeal. The delay was attributed to Rouse's failure to meet with legal advisers while in custody. The renewal application was similarly out of time by over 2,000 days, which the court found unacceptable.

Details of the Offences

The offences occurred in April 2017, when Rouse, believing Mr Kelly had flirted with his girlfriend, subjected him to a prolonged assault in his own flat. The attack involved a torch, a knife, and threats of mutilation, causing significant injuries. Rouse also committed burglary and fraud, using Mr Kelly's bank card to withdraw funds and sell stolen items.

Court's Analysis

The Court of Appeal examined whether the sentence was manifestly excessive, considering the totality of the offences. It was noted that false imprisonment typically involves concurrent sentences for related offences. However, the court found no error in the sentencing judge's decision to impose consecutive sentences for the burglary and fraud, given they occurred after the false imprisonment.

Aggravating Factors

The court highlighted several aggravating factors, including the victim's vulnerability, the violence and humiliation inflicted, and the use of the bank card for financial gain. These elements justified a severe sentence, reflective of the gravity of the offences.

Conclusion

The Court of Appeal concluded that the sentence was not manifestly excessive. The application for leave to appeal was therefore refused, affirming the original sentence as appropriate given the circumstances and the totality of the offending.

Learn More

For more information on criminal sentencing and appeals, see BeCivil's guide to UK Criminal Law.