He then stabbed himself as part of a plan to claim that he acted in self-defence. – a jury at an original trial at the Old Bailey believed his false story
A man who murdered his wife has had the minimum term of his life sentence increased from 29 and a half years to 33 and a half years after the Court of Appeal ruled it was “unduly lenient”.
Robert Rhodes, 53, cut his wife Dawn’s throat in their family home in Redhill, Surrey, in 2016, having plotted the murder for months. After killing his wife, Rhodes stabbed himself as part of a plan to claim that he acted in self-defence. A jury at a trial at the Old Bailey believed his false story and acquitted him in 2017.
Rhodes was found guilty at a second trial at Inner London Crown Court in December last year of murder and perjury for false evidence at his Old Bailey trial.
Solicitor General Ellie Reeves referred his sentence to the Court of Appeal as “unduly lenient”, and lawyers told a hearing on Tuesday that the murder sentence alone should have had a starting point of 30 years before the other offences were taken into account.
Lawyers for Rhodes, who attended via a video link from HMP Wayland in Norfolk, said that the sentence should remain “as is”.
In a ruling, Lady Justice May, sitting with Mrs Justice Cheema-Grubb and Judge Nigel Lickley KC, agreed that the sentence was unduly lenient and said that the murder was “truly appalling”, adding: “We find it hard to conceive of a more heinous plot.”
The minimum term is to be reduced by the number of days Rhodes spent in custody before he was originally sentenced, but the increase means he will not be released until at least 2057.
Tom Little KC, for the Solicitor General, told the court in written submissions that Rhodes had contemplated murdering his wife by January 2016 at the latest after he found out that she was having an affair.
Mr Little said that the murder involved “significant planning and premeditation”, adding in court the the case was of “exceptional seriousness”, and that Mrs Justice Ellenbogen was “wrong”.
Nina Grahame KC, for Rhodes, said that it would be wrong to “try to mechanistically break the offending apart”, and that the trial judge was “best-placed” to decide what minimum term was appropriate.
She said: “Some judges would consider it lenient. It does not reach the unduly lenient test in our submission, and the sentence should remain as is.”
It comes as, in separate news, people who kill a partner or ex-partner at home with a knife or other weapon could face an extra 10 years in prison under plans to strengthen sentencing laws, in a bid to tackle violence against women.
For murders where a weapon is taken to the scene with intent to kill, the starting point for the minimum sentence to be served is 25 years.
But in most murders which take place in a home, the weapon – for example, a kitchen knife – is already there, meaning a lower 15-year starting point applies.
The Ministry of Justice (MoJ) said it intends to close the 10-year gap so domestic killers face higher sentences.
More than a fifth of all murders are domestic, and women are overwhelmingly the victims in these cases.
There is already a higher starting point of 30 years for murder using a firearm.
Someone convicted of murder receives a mandatory life sentence and judges then set a minimum term.
Deputy Prime Minister David Lammy said: “For centuries, the law failed to protect women from violence at the hands of their partner -whether from marital rape or from abuse behind closed doors.
“Whilst we’ve made significant progress, we need to continue righting these wrongs.
“This change closes a long overdue gap and will ensure those who murder their partner face sentences that better reflect the devastating harm they cause.”
The law change is subject to consultation with the Sentencing Council and will be introduced “as soon as possible”, the MoJ said.
