Vikram Singh

The appellant appealed his indeterminate sentence as a dangerous offender, arguing that the sentencing judge erred by rejecting a joint sentencing submission for a determinate sentence followed by a long-term supervision order.

The appellant had pleaded guilty to sexually assaulting four children in 2004 and received a determinate sentence.

While on probation, he sexually assaulted two of his own children and breached a prohibition order.

The sentencing judge imposed an indeterminate sentence based on psychiatric evidence that the appellant's pedophilia could not be managed in the community and that he posed a danger to children.

The Court of Appeal upheld the indeterminate sentence, finding that the sentencing judge properly applied the legal test and that the evidence supported the conclusion that the appellant could not be managed in the community.

The appellant appealed his convictions for sexual assault, unlawful confinement, and sexual interference involving an 11-year-old complainant.

He argued the trial judge misapprehended evidence, gave inadequate reasons, and rendered unreasonable verdicts based on flawed credibility findings.

The Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal regarding the sexual offences, finding the trial judge's credibility assessments and reasons were sound.

However, the court allowed the appeal in part to quash the unlawful confinement conviction, as the trial judge failed to make findings on the essential elements of that offence.

The appellant appealed his sentence, arguing he should have received enhanced credit for pre-sentence custody.

The Crown conceded that, following the Supreme Court's decision in Summers, the appellant was entitled to credit at a ratio of 1.5 to 1.

The Court of Appeal varied the period of incarceration to time served, but upheld the 10-year duration of the section 161 prohibition order.