AN Erin man dubbed a serial rapist who posed as a PH driver has lost his appeal against the 27-year sentence imposed on him in 2018, which he complained was excessive.

At his appeal, heard in August 2021, Jude John Arjoon complained of the sentencing principles the judge applied for the starting point for the rape and manslaughter charges; the fact that the judge found no mitigating factors; and his imposition of consecutive sentences.

In November 2017, Arjoon pleaded guilty to six charges of robbery, kidnapping, rape and manslaughter on three separate indictments.

In June 2018, Justice Hayden St Clair-Douglas him sentenced to 27 years and a month.

On Monday, Justices of Appeal Alice Yorke-Soo Hon, Mark Mohammed and Gillian Lucky delivered a joint decision, dismissing all but part of one of the three grounds raised by Arjoon’s attorney Rajiv Persad.

While admitting that the sentencing judge should have used his prospects for rehabilitation and his positive report from the prison as a positive mitigating factor, they said this still would have had no impact on the overall sentence.

Arjoon, originally from Point Fortin, pretended to be a PH driver when he committed offences against three women. He was arrested in July 2005 and was committed to stand trial on a series of offences.

When he appeared in the High Court, he pleaded guilty to manslaughter but asked for the other indictments to be heard together.

For manslaughter, Arjoon was sentenced to 21 years but received discounts for his guilty plea and the time spent in prison awaiting trial, leaving one year and one month to serve. On the second indictment for kidnapping, rape and robbery, he was sentenced to 24, 12 and nine years before the one-third guilty-plea deduction. For the third indictment, Arjoon was sentenced to 14 years for kidnapping and six for robbery before the one-third discount.

The sentences for the separate charges were to run concurrently (or together), and consecutively of each other, meaning one after the other.

In their ruling, the judges said the determination of a starting point was up the discretion of a sentencing judge. In Arjoon’s case, they said St Clair-Douglas’s were fair and appropriate.

They also said age could not be used as a mitigating factor.

“It is important to send the message to young offenders who have passed the age of majority that they must be accountable for their actions. The manner in which these crimes were committed does not justify any deduction on account of the youth of the appellant.”

Arjoon was 22 at the time.

On his rehabilitative prospects, the judges said it was unfortunate that prisoners can only participate in rehabilitation programmes after they are convicted and not while on remand.

“Punishment is one of the main objectives of sentencing, but so too is rehabilitation.”

On guilt and remorse, the court said the former did not equate to the latter but sentencing credit could be given if remorse was manifest.

On the totality principle, which applies when a court imposes mul