THE COURT OF APPEAL FOR SASKATCHEWAN HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN CORAM: The Honourable Mr. Justice Cameron The Honourable Mr. Justice Sherstobitoff The Honourable Mr. Justice Lane COUNSEL: Mr. D. Rayner for the Crown Ms. M. Pappas for the respondent DISPOSITION: Appeal Heard: September 7, 1994 Appeal Allowed:September 7, 1994 (oral) Reasons: September 12, 1994 On Appeal From: His Honour Judge L. J. Smith, Youth Court Appeal File: 6374 Oral Reasons by:The Honourable Mr. Justice Cameron In concurrence:The Honourable Mr. Justice Sherstobitoff The Honourable Mr. Justice Lane CAMERON J.A. This is an appeal by the Crown against a sentenceimposed upon the respondent, a young offender, as a resultof his having committed two armed robberies. He was sentenced by His Honour Judge Linton Smith to term of one year in closed custody in respect of each of the offenses. The two terms were ordered to be served consecutively, but concurrently with the remainder of two year term of closed custody earlier imposed upon the respondent. TheCrown appealed on the ground the two terms of closedcustody, having been ordered to be served concurrently withthe earlier term, did not constitute a fit sentence havingregard for the seriousness of the offenses, therequirements of deterrence, and the need to uphold publicconfidence in the administration of justice. The background of the matter is this. The respondent, now 17 1/2 years old, was in the Paul Dojack Youth Centre, serving out two year term of closed custody for an array of offenses, when he escaped on October 18th, 1993. On January 27th, 1994, while still at large, he and friend held up two convenience stores in Regina while armed with hand gun. In each instance, the respondent wielded the weapon, said to have been pellet gun. He was arrested shortly afterwards and remained in custody on remand until June 1st, when he was sentenced. In addition to imposing the sentence under appeal, Judge Smith also sentenced the respondent to term of secure custody for escaping from the Centre, term consisting of the time he had spent on remand awaiting disposition of the armed robbery charges. When thus sentenced on June 1st,about 18 months of the earlier term of secure custodyremained to be served. As a result of that and of theorder directing the present terms be served concurrentlywith the remainder of the earlier term, the respondent waseffectively sentenced to a term of six months in respect ofthe armed robberies. Each of us is of the view the appeal must be allowed. We are of the opinion that the two terms of secure custody, having been ordered to be served concurrently with the remainder of the earlier term, simply did not constitute fit sentence. The sentence does not begin to answer adequately to the requirements of fitness. An additionalsix month period of secure custody for these armedrobberies does not meet either the interests ofrehabilitation or the requirements of deterrence. Nor does it meet the need to maintain public confidence in the law and its administration by the courts. The respondent has an extensive record of property- related and other offenses, including failures to comply with the processes of the law and the orders of the courts. These latest offenses demonstrate, first, that he has profited little from earlier dispositions and, second, that he has taken to committing increasingly serious crimes. The weight of the law has now to fall on him more heavily if it is going to achieve its objectives. The appeal will therefore be allowed to the extentsought by the Crown. The two terms of one year each willnot only be served consecutively, the one to follow theother, but consecutive to the term earlier imposed. In theresult, the respondent will have to serve out the timeremaining in respect of the earlier disposition, then servetwo more years in secure custody in consequence of thesearmed robberies.
A young offender was sentenced to 1 year closed custody on each of 2 armed robberies, the sentences to be consecutive to each other, but both being concurrent to the remainder of a sentence of 2 years closed custody which was already being served with respect to previous unrelated convictions when the accused escaped and committed the robberies. 18 months of the previous sentence remained to be served with the result that the total time in custody would only be increased by 6 months as a result of the 2 robbery convictions. The Crown appealed. HELD: Appeal allowed. The sentence neither reflected the seriousness of the offences nor provided adequate deterrence. The 2 new sentences totalling 2 years were made consecutive to the remaining term of 18 months as well as to each other.