Totality principle

Last updated

The totality principle is a common law principle which applies when a court imposes multiple sentences of imprisonment. [1] [2] [3] The principle was first formulated by David Thomas [4] in his 1970 study of the sentencing decisions of the Court of Appeal of England and Wales: [1]

Contents

The effect of the totality principle is to require a sentencer who has passed a series of sentences, each properly calculated in relation to the offence for which it is imposed and each properly made consecutive in accordance with the principles governing consecutive sentences, to review the aggregate sentence and consider whether the aggregate is 'just and appropriate'. The principle has been stated many times in various forms: 'when a number of offences are being dealt with and specific punishments in respect of them are being totted up to make a total, it is always necessary for the court to take a last look at the total just to see whether it looks wrong'; 'when ... cases of multiplicity of offences come before the court, the court must not content itself by doing the arithmetic and passing the sentence which the arithmetic produces. It must look at the totality of the criminal behaviour and ask itself what is the appropriate sentence for all the offences.'

Application

United Kingdom

Within the context of English and Welsh law, the totality principle is defined within the Criminal Justice Act 1991, that states that nothing in the Act "shall prevent the court ... in the case of an offender who is convicted of one or more other offences, from mitigating his sentence by applying any rule of law as to the totality of sentences". [5] The principle was recognised in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 Section 166 (3)(b). [2]

Sentencing guidelines are contained within the Coroners and Justice Act 2009, which states that the application of the principle are within the management of the Sentencing Council, applied along with the Offences Taken into Consideration (TICs). [3] On 11 June 2012, [6] the latest guidelines from the Sentencing Council came into force, which cover the three overarching aspects of sentencing: [7] allocation; TICs; totality.

The principle of totality comprises two elements: [8]

  1. All courts, when sentencing for more than a single offence, should pass a total sentence which reflects all the offending behaviour before it and is just and proportionate. This is so whether the sentences are structured as concurrent or consecutive. Therefore, concurrent sentences will ordinarily be longer than a single sentence for a single offence.
  2. It is usually impossible to arrive at a just and proportionate sentence for multiple offending simply by adding together notional single sentences. It is necessary to address the offending behaviour, together with the factors personal to the offender as a whole.

Resultantly, the suggestion for the application of concurrent or consecutive sentences is within the following gudielines:

Australia

The totality principle is "well established" [9] [10] in the common law of Australia. [11] The High Court quoted Thomas's formulation of the principle in Mill v R (1988). [12] It is also reflected in the Crimes Act 1914 (Cth) s 16B. [10] [13]

As well as to prevent an excessive sentence, the principle is a product of two further principles "namely proportionality and mercy." [14] Further, the principle must be applied "without a suggestion that a discount is given for multiple offences." [15] [16]

Canada

Section 718.2 applies the totality principle by stating that: c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh; This is so as to "avoid sentences that cumulatively are out of proportion to the gravity of the offences." [17] [18] In application it requires Canadian courts to craft a global sentence of all offences that is not excessive. [19] If the total sentence is excessive the court must adjust the sentence so that the "total sentence is proper". [20] A sentence may violate the totality principle where:

  1. The global sentence considerably exceeds the "normal" level of the most serious of the individual offences. [21]
  2. The global sentence "exceeds what is appropriate given the offender's overall culpability. [22]

Hong Kong

Hong Kong Basic Law is based on the principles of English common law, and hence include the totality principle, which are applied by the Department of Justice. [23]

New Zealand

The totality principle applies within New Zealand law. [5] Aware of public concerns re perceived sentence discounting by the judiciary for multiple offences, the courts state that this assumes that offenders are "rational and well-informed calculators of the cost/benefit of committing offences", and hence see the correct application of the totality principle as "recognising a need to balance totality with deterrence and adequate denunciation of the conduct involved." [5]

Related Research Articles

In criminal law, a sentence is the punishment for a crime ordered by a trial court after conviction in a criminal procedure, normally at the conclusion of a trial. A sentence may consist of imprisonment, a fine, or other sanctions. Sentences for multiple crimes may be a concurrent sentence, where sentences of imprisonment are all served together at the same time, or a consecutive sentence, in which the period of imprisonment is the sum of all sentences served one after the other. Additional sentences include intermediate, which allows an inmate to be free for about 8 hours a day for work purposes; determinate, which is fixed on a number of days, months, or years; and indeterminate or bifurcated, which mandates the minimum period be served in an institutional setting such as a prison followed by street time period of parole, supervised release or probation until the total sentence is completed.

In Canada and England and Wales, certain convicted persons may be designated as dangerous offenders and subject to a longer, or indefinite, term of imprisonment in order to protect the public. Dangerousness in law is a legal establishment of the risk that a person poses to cause harm. Other countries, including Denmark, Norway, and parts of the United States have similar provisions of law.

A habitual offender, repeat offender, or career criminal is a person convicted of a crime who was previously convicted of other crimes. Various state and jurisdictions may have laws targeting habitual offenders, and specifically providing for enhanced or exemplary punishments or other sanctions. They are designed to counter criminal recidivism by physical incapacitation via imprisonment.

Assault occasioning actual bodily harm is a statutory offence of aggravated assault in England and Wales, Northern Ireland, the Australian Capital Territory, New South Wales, Hong Kong and the Solomon Islands. It has been abolished in the Republic of Ireland and in South Australia, but replaced with a similar offence.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974</span> United Kingdom legislation

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 of the UK Parliament enables some criminal convictions to be ignored after a rehabilitation period. Its purpose is that people do not have a lifelong blot on their records because of a relatively minor offence in their past. The rehabilitation period is automatically determined by the sentence. After this period, if there has been no further conviction the conviction is "spent" and, with certain exceptions, need not be disclosed by the ex-offender in any context such as when applying for a job, obtaining insurance, or in civil proceedings. A conviction for the purposes of the ROA includes a conviction issued outside Great Britain and therefore foreign convictions are eligible to receive the protection of the ROA.

Section 11 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the section of the Canadian Constitution that protects a person's legal rights in criminal and penal matters. There are nine enumerated rights protected in section 11.

A police caution is a formal alternative to prosecution in minor cases, administered by the police in England and Wales. It is commonly used to resolve cases where full prosecution is not seen as the most appropriate solution. Accepting a caution requires an admission of guilt.

Murder is an offence under the common law legal system of England and Wales. It is considered the most serious form of homicide, in which one person kills another with the intention to unlawfully cause either death or serious injury. The element of intentionality was originally termed malice aforethought, although it required neither malice nor premeditation. Baker, chapter 14 states that many killings done with a high degree of subjective recklessness were treated as murder from the 12th century right through until the 1974 decision in DPP v Hyam.

In judicial practice, back-to-back life sentences, also called consecutive life sentences, are two or more consecutive life sentences given to a convicted felon. This practice is used to ensure the felon will never be released from prison.

The youth justice system in England and Wales comprises the organs and processes that are used to prosecute, convict and punish persons under 18 years of age who commit criminal offences. The principal aim of the youth justice system is to prevent offending by children and young persons.

In the United Kingdom there are several crimes that arise from failure to take care of health, safety and welfare at work.

<i>R v DB</i> Canadian legal decision

R v DB, 2008 SCC 25 is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on youth justice and sentencing. The Court held the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act that required presumptive adult sentences for youth convicted of certain offences to be unconstitutional. Ruling that the presumption of diminished moral blameworthiness for young persons was a principle of fundamental justice under section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that the impugned provisions unconstitutionally deprived them of their liberty by presuming their moral blameworthiness to be equivalent to adults.

Life imprisonment in Canada is a criminal sentence for certain offences that lasts for the offender’s life. Parole is possible, but even if paroled, the offender remains under the supervision of Corrections Canada for their lifetime, and can be returned to prison for parole violations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Criminal sentencing in Canada</span> Overview of criminal sentencing in Canada

Canadian criminal law is governed by the Criminal Code, which includes the principles and powers in relation to criminal sentencing in Canada.

In Canada, homicide is the act of causing death to another person through any means, directly or indirectly. Homicide can either be culpable or non-culpable, with the former being unlawful under a category of offences defined in the Criminal Code, a statute passed by the Parliament of Canada that applies uniformly across the country. Murder is the most serious category of culpable homicide, the others being manslaughter and infanticide.

<i>R v Wells</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

R v Wells is a decision of the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to sentencing principles set out in s 718.2(e) of the Criminal Code, relating to Aboriginal offenders. The decision clarified the principles set out in the Court's earlier decision in R v Gladue.

Sentencing in England and Wales refers to a bench of magistrates or district judge in a magistrate's court or a judge in the Crown Court passing sentence on a person found guilty of a criminal offence. In deciding the sentence, the court will take into account a number of factors: the type of offence and how serious it is, the timing of any plea of guilty, the defendant's character and antecedents, including their criminal record and the defendant's personal circumstances such as their financial circumstances in the case of a fine being imposed.

In Australian law, the one transaction rule or single transaction principle is when two or more offences are committed in the course of a single act, all sentences should be concurrent rather than consecutive.

R v Ipeelee is a Supreme Court of Canada decision which reaffirmed the court's previous holdings in R v Gladue, in that when sentencing an Indigenous person, every sentencing judge must consider: (a) the unique systemic or background factors which may have played a part in bringing the particular Indigenous individual before the courts; and (b) the types of sentencing procedures and sanctions which may be appropriate in the circumstances for the person before the court because of their particular Indigenous heritage or connection.

<i>Pearce v R</i>

Pearce v R is an Australian legal case decided in the High Court.

References

  1. 1 2 Dr David A. Thomas (1970). Principles of sentencing: The sentencing policy of the Court of Appeal Criminal Division. Heinemann.
  2. 1 2 Lucia Zedner, Julian V. Roberts (16 August 2012). Principles and Values in Criminal Law and Criminal Justice. Oxford University Press. p. 286. ISBN   978-0199696796 . Retrieved 4 July 2014.
  3. 1 2 Sentencing Council for England and Wales. "Totality guideline" (PDF). Retrieved 1 February 2015.
  4. ↑ Keith Ewing (5 November 2013). "David Thomas obituary". The Guardian . Retrieved 4 July 2014.
  5. 1 2 3 "8. Sentencing Multiple Offenders". New Zealand Ministry of Justice . Retrieved 4 July 2014.
  6. ↑ "Sentencing Council publishes guidelines on allocation, offences taken into consideration and totality". Sentencing Council. 6 March 2012. Retrieved 4 July 2014.
  7. ↑ "Sentencing – Overview – Totality". Crown Prosecution Service . Retrieved 4 July 2014.
  8. ↑ Sentencing Advisory Panel. "Definitive Guidelines TICS & Totality" (PDF). Retrieved 4 July 2014.
  9. ↑ "Sentencing for Multiple Offences in Western Australia" (PDF). Crime Research Centre, University of Western Australia. p. 34. Retrieved 1 February 2015.
  10. 1 2 "Sentencing Bench Book – Concurrent and consecutive sentences". Judicial Commission of New South Wales. Retrieved 30 January 2015.
  11. ↑ "Victorian Sentencing Manual 6.4 – The totality principle". State of Victoria Judicial College. Retrieved 4 July 2014.
  12. ↑ Mill v R [1988] HCA 70 at 8; (1988) 166 CLR 59
  13. ↑ Postiglione v The Queen [1997] HCA 26; (1997) 189 CLR 295, 308.
  14. ↑ R Fox and A Freiberg (1999). Sentencing: State and Federal Law in Victoria (2 ed.). p. 725.
  15. ↑ R v MAK (2006) 167 A Crim R 159
  16. ↑ R v Knight (2005) 155 A Crim R 252
    R v Harris (2007) 171 A Crim R 267
    R v Wheeler [2000] NSWCCA 34
  17. ↑ R. v. D.F.P. (2005), 197 C.C.C. 498 (N.L.C.A.)
  18. ↑ Ruby (1994). Sentencing, 4th edition. Butterworths.
  19. ↑ M. (C.A.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500, 1996 CanLII 230 at para 42
  20. ↑ R. v. Keshane, 2005 SKCA 18
    R. v. Hicks, 2007 NLCA 41
  21. ↑ R. v. E.T.P., 2001 MBCA 194
  22. ↑ R v Wharry, 2008 ABCA 293, 234 CCC 3d 338, 437 AR 148 at para. 35
    R v Abrosimo, 2007 BCCA 406, 225 CCC 3d 253 at paras. 20 to 31
    see also R v Tiegs, 2012 ABCA 116 (CanLII), 2012 ABCA 116, [2012] AJ No. 378
  23. ↑ "Sentencing Principles" (PDF). Department of Justice. 2011. Retrieved 4 July 2014.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.