R v Deng

The appeal concerned the sentencing of the appellant, R, by a sentencing judge. The appellant raised two grounds of appeal: first, that the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive, and second, that the sentencing judge erred by failing to backdate the commencement of the sentence to the date of the appellant's arrest and detention in custody.

The court was required to determine whether the sentence imposed was manifestly excessive and whether the sentencing judge had erred in their treatment of the period the appellant spent in custody on remand. Specifically, the court considered whether the judge had adequately accounted for the five months and five days the appellant had spent in custody prior to sentencing.

The court allowed the appeal on the second ground, with the prosecution conceding this point. The court held that while a sentencing judge has discretion regarding credit for time spent on remand, this discretion must be exercised transparently. The sentencing judge must indicate how such time has been taken into account, and if less than the full period is credited, reasons for the discrepancy should be provided. The court endorsed the principle that sentences should ordinarily be backdated to the date of custody unless there are complicating factors, and that the sentencing process must be clear so the offender understands how their sentence is constructed. Given the absence of complicating factors, the court found that the sentence should have been backdated.

The appeal was allowed, and the appellant was resentenced. The court ordered that the sentence be backdated to 1 March 2015, the date of the appellant's arrest and detention. The issue of manifest excess was not determined, as it was rendered unnecessary by the success of the second ground of appeal.