In Canada, failing to remain at the scene of an accident, commonly referred to as a “hit and run,” is a serious criminal offence under section 320.16 of the Criminal Code. A recent sentencing decision from the Provincial Court of British Columbia, R. v. Singh, 2025 BCPC 126, illustrates the gravity of such offences and the types of sentences they attract.
In Singh, two young men, Gaganpreet Singh and Jagdeep Singh, were convicted of three offences stemming from a single incident: dangerous driving, failing to stop at the scene of an accident, and offering an indignity to human remains. The facts are grim. While driving a Ford Mustang late at night, the pair struck a man who was lying in the road. Instead of stopping to assist, they drove away with the man trapped under the vehicle, dragged his body for over a kilometre, then made repeated efforts to dislodge his remains before leaving the scene entirely.
The offence of failing to remain at the scene does not depend on who caused the accident.
What matters is whether a person involved in an accident with another person or vehicle fails to stop, provide their name, and offer assistance. In Singh, although the deceased may already have been injured or unconscious before the collision, the court emphasized that the actions after the initial impact, which included driving away, failing to call for help, and abandoning the body, constituted the criminal conduct.
If you are involved in an accident in Canada with a person or a vehicle, your legal obligation is to immediately come to a stop and render all reasonable assistance necessary. Typically, this means calling 911 if somebody is injured. You are also legally obligated to provide your name, address, driver’s license, and insurance information to anybody else involved in the accident.
Sentences for hit and run offences vary significantly depending on the facts. The case law typically suggests a range of 3 to 18 months imprisonment for failing to remain at the scene int he case of a death or injury. In this case, the Crown sought a four-year jail sentence for Jagdeep Singh and a jointly recommended three-year sentence for Gaganpreet Singh. The judge ultimately imposed identical sentences on both: a global three-year custodial sentence, including 18 months for dangerous driving and 18 months for interference with human remains, to be served consecutively. The hit and run offence attracted a concurrent one-year sentence.
When we talk about consecutive sentences, what we mean is that you serve one sentence and then your next sentence starts after that one is over. Most sentences are served concurrently, meaning at the same time. If you get 18 months of jail for three separate offences, you would only do 18 months of jail. But there is a presumption in hit and run cases that the hit and run sentence will be consecutive to any other sentence for any other offence. This is done to deter people from leaving the scene of an accident. This means that you ultimately may spend more time in jail or more time under monitoring in the community if you do not remain at the scene of a collision.
In this case, the indignity to human remains was consecutive to the other sentences, which had the same effect at the end of the day. However it was structured, in a case like this, it’s not surprising to see consecutive rather than concurrent sentences for at least some of the offences.
The decision is grounded in several important sentencing principles. First, although hit and run cases often involve first-time offenders, the courts emphasize denunciation and deterrence as primary sentencing considerations. As the judge noted, sentences must denounce the kind of risk-taking and indifference to human life that characterizes this type of offence. Specific and general deterrence remain paramount, even when the offenders are remorseful, young, and facing other serious consequences, like deportation, as both accused were.
Second, sentencing is a fact-driven exercise. The court reviewed aggravating factors, including the horrific injuries suffered by the victim, the offenders’ indifference, and the impact on the victim’s Indigenous community. The mitigating factors included youth, lack of criminal history, guilty pleas, and genuine remorse. Nonetheless, the court found their conduct to be highly morally blameworthy and declined to impose a conditional sentence.
Finally, the case illustrates how courts consider sentencing structure. Although the dangerous driving and hit and run offences arose from the same continuous course of conduct, and were sentenced concurrently, the separate act of discarding the body justified a consecutive sentence for interference with remains. This approach preserved proportionality while respecting the totality principle.
In sum, R. v. Singh is a stark reminder that the law takes hit and run offences seriously. The duty to stop, identify oneself, and provide assistance is not optional. Leaving the scene or making things worse by concealing or discarding the victim elevates the conduct from mere negligence to criminal liability and can result in years of imprisonment.
If you’ve been involved in a motor vehicle collision, contact a lawyer before you do anything. Leaving the scene of an accident is serious. Not only are you facing potential jail time, but you are also facing potential breach of your ICBC insurance coverage.
It is important to get legal advice as soon as possible if you’ve been in an accident and made the mistake of leaving the scene.
