R v Reece Singh-Digwa

For a child or young person who has committed serious and repeated violent acquisitive offending, a sentence of detention may be necessary despite youth and the availability of a youth rehabilitation order. In fixing that sentence, the court must give proper and consistent effect to youth. Where closely contemporaneous robberies attract materially different reductions for age, the sentencing judge should identify a good reason for the difference.

Totality remains relevant. Where other serious offences have already been reflected by imposing no separate penalties, a further totality reduction may be unnecessary. The resulting sentence must nevertheless be reviewed for proportionality, taking account of age.

The appellant committed a series of robberies, thefts of motor vehicles, handling stolen goods, affray and assisting an offender when aged 15 or 16. He was convicted of one robbery after a Youth Court trial and pleaded guilty to the remaining offences. He was committed to the Crown Court for sentence under sections 16 and 20 of the Sentencing Act 2020.

At the Crown Court at Southampton, the judge imposed detention, treating the robberies as lead offences and imposing no separate penalties for the remaining offences. The appellant appealed against sentence. He contended that the lead sentence had not received an adequate reduction for youth and that a youth rehabilitation order should have been imposed instead.

1. Appeal allowed in part. The court reduced the overall sentence from six years and two months’ detention to four years and eight months’ detention.

2. The sentencing judge was entitled, and was right, to conclude that detention rather than a youth rehabilitation order was required. The appellant’s repeated and serious offending justified custody notwithstanding his youth and the matters identified in the Sentencing Children and Young People guideline.

3. The judge had given a one-half reduction for youth when sentencing two robberies, but reduced the principal pre-discount sentence of six years by only one year for the chronologically proximate robbery tried in the Youth Court. There was no good reason for that difference. The proper youth reduction reduced that sentence to three years.

4. The court did not make the further totality reduction made below. The other serious offences had already been reflected in the overall sentencing exercise because no separate penalties had been imposed for them. The resulting consecutive sentences of one year and eight months and three years produced four years and eight months’ detention. Having reviewed age and proportionality, the court held that sentence proportionate.

• Court of Appeal (Criminal Division) — Appeal against sentence allowed in part; the total sentence was reduced to four years and eight months’ detention.
• Crown Court at Southampton — On 4 August 2023, following committal for sentence under sections 16 and 20 of the Sentencing Act 2020, the appellant received detention for multiple offences.
• Youth Court — The appellant was convicted after trial of one robbery and pleaded guilty to other offences before committal for sentence.