Singh-Digwa, R. v

Factual and Procedural Background

This appeal concerns the sentencing of the Appellant, who committed multiple offences including robbery, affray, handling stolen goods, theft of motor vehicles, and assisting an offender between the ages of 15 and 18. The Appellant pleaded guilty to several offences and was convicted after trial for one robbery. The offences occurred between June 2021 and May 2022 in The City. The sentencing took place on 4 August 2023 before the Resident Judge, resulting in a total detention sentence of four years and two months plus a victim surcharge. The Appellant appealed the sentence with leave granted by a single judge.

Legal Issues Presented

1. Whether the sentencing judge erred in the quantum of the discount applied for the Appellant’s youth in relation to the main robbery offence.
2. Whether a youth rehabilitation order should have been imposed instead of a custodial sentence.

Arguments of the Parties

Appellant's Arguments

• The Appellant’s counsel argued that the sentencing judge should have applied a greater discount for age, specifically a one-half reduction rather than a simple one-year reduction, for the main robbery sentence.
• The Appellant’s counsel also contended that a youth rehabilitation order would have been more appropriate than a custodial sentence given the Appellant’s age and circumstances.

Prosecution's Arguments

• The prosecution emphasized the seriousness of the offending and supported the Resident Judge’s approach, noting the appropriate discounts given for age in other offences.
• The prosecution argued that the sentencing structure accounted for additional serious offences such as affray and assisting an offender, which justified the custodial sentence.

Table of Precedents Cited

No precedents were cited in the provided opinion.

Court's Reasoning and Analysis

The court acknowledged the seriousness of the Appellant’s offences and the appropriateness of a custodial sentence despite the Appellant’s youth. The court agreed that the sentencing judge was justified in rejecting a youth rehabilitation order due to the gravity of the offences. However, the court found that the sentencing judge did not apply a consistent discount for age across all robbery offences. The judge had applied a one-half discount for youth on some robberies but only a one-year reduction on the main robbery offence without explanation. The appellate court held that the same one-half discount should have been applied to the main robbery sentence, reducing it from six years to three years. The court declined to grant further reduction for totality as the sentencing judge had already accounted for the other offences by imposing no separate penalties. The resulting effective sentence was recalculated to four years and eight months’ detention, combining the adjusted main robbery sentence and the sentence for the other robbery.

Holding and Implications

The court ALLOWED THE APPEAL IN PART by reducing the total effective sentence from six years and two months to four years and eight months’ detention.

The decision directly affects the Appellant by reducing the custodial sentence to reflect a consistent approach to youth discounting. The court affirmed the appropriateness of custodial detention over a youth rehabilitation order given the serious nature of the offences. No new legal precedent was established; the ruling primarily clarifies the application of sentencing discounts for youth in cases involving multiple offences.