The appellant, Robert Rouse, appealed his sentence, arguing that the sentencing judge failed to adequately consider the negative impact of his time spent on house arrest.
The Court of Appeal found that the strict conditions of house arrest, which required the appellant to be supervised by his full-time working surety, did indeed have a significant impact on his liberty and ability to carry out normal activities.
The Court concluded that this impact should have mitigated his sentence.
Leave to appeal was granted, and the appeal was allowed, resulting in a 7.5-month reduction to the appellant's sentence.
