(Trinidad Express) The Court of Appeal on Monday dismissed Jules John Arjoon’s matter against the 27-year sentence imposed on him for manslaughter, rape, kidnapping and robbery.
Arjoon pretended to be a taxi driver when he committed the offences. They involved three women. He appealed his sentence, saying it was excessive.
Arjoon pleaded guilty in 2018 and the judge started with a sentence of 21 years in relation to the manslaughter, following the death of Mary Baldeo-Waheed.
The one-third discount for his guilty plea was applied, leaving 14 years. The 12 years and 11 months he had served in pre-trial custody was also deducted, resulting in him having to serve one year and one month with hard labour.
In relation to the second victim, following the one-third discount from the starting points, Arjoon was left with 16 years for the rape, eight years for the kidnapping and six years for the robbery.
For the third victim, he was sentenced to ten years for kidnapping and four years for robbery with aggravation after the guilty plea discount.
The sentences were to run consecutively for the separate offences against the women.
In total Arjoon had to serve 27 years and one month.
He appealed with his attorney, senior counsel Rajiv Persad, describing the sentences as unreasonable and excessive.
Three grounds were raised — that the judge erred in law when he set the starting point for the manslaughter and rape at a figure that was disproportionate; that he failed to take into account mitigating factors and that he imposed consecutive instead of concurrent sentences on Arjoon.
When there are multiple sentences of imprisonment, concurrent sentences are served at the same time while, in consecutive sentences, they are served one after the other.
Submissions had in the past been made by prosecutor Travers Sinanan.
He had submitted that both manslaughter and rape carry lifetime sentences and the judge started with a term of years. He had also said that the judge was correct in imposing consecutive sentences and that sentences were not harsh and oppressive.
Sinanan said the consecutive sentences reflected the overall criminality of the offences which he described as callous and heinous in nature.
He added that there were three incidents which happened within the space of a month, were unrelated although similar in nature, and the victims did not know one another. The appeal was heard before judges Alice Yorke-Soo Hon, Mark Mohammed and Gillian Lucky.