Rout v The Queen

The case of Rout v The Queen involved an appeal against the sentence imposed on the applicant, who was convicted of aggravated burglary and other offences following an armed home invasion in 2006. The offences were not charged until 2010, and the applicant was convicted at trial in 2014. The trial judge sentenced the applicant to a total effective sentence of six years’ imprisonment, with a non-parole period of three years and eight months. The applicant had previously been sentenced in 2007 for similar offences committed in 2006. The applicant sought leave to appeal against the sentence, arguing that it was manifestly excessive and should be reviewed under the principle of totality.

The legal issues before the court were whether the sentence was manifestly excessive and whether the delay between the commission of the offence and the imposition of sentence warranted a review. The court was also required to determine whether the application to add a ground to the appeal, which included fresh or new evidence, should be allowed. The fresh or new evidence included details about a gunshot wound and childhood sexual abuse. The applicant argued that this evidence demonstrated that the sentence was manifestly excessive.

The court found that the sentence was not manifestly excessive, and the delay between the commission of the offence and the imposition of sentence did not warrant a review. The court held that the totality principle did not apply in this case, as the applicant had been sentenced for similar offences in 2007. Regarding the application to add a ground to the appeal, the court found that the evidence was not fresh or new, as it was available at the time of the original appeal. The application to add a ground was refused. Consequently, the application for leave to appeal against sentence was refused.