DPP v Candaza

The Director of Public Prosecutions appealed against sentences imposed on two young offenders who had pleaded guilty to armed robbery. The Court of Appeal considered whether the sentences were manifestly inadequate. The respondents, both of whom had no prior criminal history, had committed the offence while under the influence of drugs and alcohol. The trial judge had imposed a sentence of detention and training orders on each of them, a decision which the Director of Public Prosecutions sought to challenge on the basis that the sentences were manifestly inadequate and did not adequately reflect the seriousness of the offence.

The court was required to determine whether the sentences imposed were manifestly inadequate, taking into account the young age of the respondents, the fact that they had no prior criminal history, their pleas of guilty, the offending being out of character, and their very sound prospects of rehabilitation. The court also had to consider whether the sentences were proportionate to the gravity of the offence and whether they adequately reflected the need for denunciation and deterrence.

The Court of Appeal held that the sentences were not manifestly inadequate. The trial judge had considered the respondents' personal circumstances and had imposed sentences that were appropriate to the offending and took into account the respondents' prospects of rehabilitation. The court found that the sentences were proportionate to the gravity of the offence and adequately reflected the need for denunciation and deterrence. The appeals were therefore dismissed.