R v Jean-Claude Placide

On a sentence appeal, the question is whether the overall sentence is manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. For multiple serious offences, the court must impose a just and proportionate sentence reflecting the total seriousness of the offending. The starting point and category range for a single offence do not cap the overall sentence. The number and nature of the offences, together with other serious offending, may require a substantial upward adjustment. Arguments that challenge the jury’s verdicts or deny the offending are irrelevant to a sentence appeal. An extension of time will serve no purpose where the proposed appeal is not arguable.

The applicant was convicted at the Crown Court at Croydon of four counts of rape, false imprisonment, and controlling or coercive behaviour. He received an extended determinate sentence of 22 years, comprising 17 years’ custody and a five-year extended licence period.

He applied for a 96-day extension of time to renew his application for leave to appeal against sentence, after refusal by a single judge. He argued that the rape offences should have remained in category 2A under the applicable guideline, with an upward adjustment for their number and nature, rather than producing the sentence imposed. The central issue was whether the overall sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle.

1. Application refused. The court refused to extend time because the proposed appeal was not arguable. It stated that leave to appeal would also have been refused.
2. On a sentence appeal, the only question is whether the overall sentence was manifestly excessive or wrong in principle. The court does not revisit evidence or submissions that amount to disagreement with the jury’s verdicts. Any such matters should have been raised at trial.
3. The sentencing judge had correctly considered the applicable Sentencing Guideline for rape. Although the starting point for one category 2A rape was 10 years’ custody, the judge had to sentence for four rapes together with false imprisonment and controlling or coercive behaviour. She was required to impose an overall sentence that was just and proportionate and reflected the seriousness of the offending as a whole.
4. The guideline range for a single rape did not prevent an overall sentence above that range. The number and nature of the rapes and the other serious offences justified a significant upward adjustment. The sentencing remarks were clear and well structured, and the sentence was, if anything, generous to the applicant.
5. The decision to impose an extended licence period was not open to criticism and had not been challenged. The court therefore found no arguable error of principle or manifest excess.

1. Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — [2023] EWCA Crim 1636. Refused the application for an extension of time and stated that leave to appeal would have been refused.
2. Single judge of the Court of Appeal — refused the applicant’s application for leave to appeal against sentence.
3. Crown Court at Croydon — convicted the applicant on 9 November 2022 and, on 4 January 2023, imposed an extended determinate sentence of 22 years.