493:
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.'
371:
669:. 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."
544:
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
567:
offences arise out of unrelated facts or incidents; offences that are of the same or similar kind but where the overall criminality will not sufficiently be reflected by concurrent sentences; one or more offence(s) qualifies for a statutory minimum sentence and concurrent sentences would improperly
492:
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
517:, 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". The principle was recognised in the
548:
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
598:
As well as to prevent an excessive sentence, the principle is a product of two further principles "namely proportionality and mercy." Further, the principle must be applied "without a suggestion that a discount is given for multiple offences."
621:
to craft a global sentence of all offences that is not excessive. If the total sentence is excessive the court must adjust the sentence so that the "total sentence is proper". A sentence may violate the totality principle where:
533:
1186:
813:
536:. On 11 June 2012, the latest guidelines from the Sentencing Council came into force, which cover the three overarching aspects of sentencing: allocation; TICs; totality.
917:
455:
561:
offences arise out of the same incident; there are a series of offences of the same or similar kind, specifically when committed against the same person.
583:
The totality principle is "well established" in the common law of
Australia. The High Court quoted Thomas's formulation of the principle in
756:
1181:
949:
893:
617:
This is so as to "avoid sentences that cumulatively are out of proportion to the gravity of the offences." In application it requires
448:
1210:
712:
267:
261:
554:
Resultantly, the suggestion for the application of concurrent or consecutive sentences is within the following guidelines:
485:
441:
726:
1156:
648:
647:
is based on the principles of
English common law, and hence include the totality principle, which are applied by the
1190:
924:
817:
317:
525:
1088:
626:
The global sentence considerably exceeds the "normal" level of the most serious of the individual offences.
427:
210:
864:
484:. The principle was first formulated by David Thomas in his 1970 study of the sentencing decisions of the
1235:
971:
398:
390:
592:
1106:
1101:
839:"Sentencing Council publishes guidelines on allocation, offences taken into consideration and totality"
340:
1230:
1215:
1205:
889:
868:
615:
c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh;
518:
514:
302:
66:
718:
228:
1220:
618:
287:
694:
508:
312:
171:
41:
1225:
1010:
995:
781:
166:
146:
838:
629:
The global sentence "exceeds what is appropriate given the offender's overall culpability.
513:
Within the context of
English and Welsh law, the totality principle is defined within the
8:
644:
307:
691:
Principles of sentencing: The sentencing policy of the Court of Appeal
Criminal Division
842:
752:
529:
406:
197:
189:
161:
156:
151:
76:
21:
528:, which states that the application of the principle are within the management of the
722:
282:
233:
223:
202:
71:
639:
419:
272:
126:
61:
1149:
666:
660:
335:
81:
578:
477:
350:
136:
1199:
1074:
786:
608:
481:
345:
218:
51:
277:
176:
473:
375:
297:
121:
111:
56:
1138:
see also R v Tiegs, 2012 ABCA 116 (CanLII), 2012 ABCA 116, AJ No. 378
256:
116:
46:
751:
370:
101:
710:
292:
251:
91:
1187:
Sentencing multiple offender, including the
Totality principle
1182:
Totality principle and guidelines at the
Sentencing Council UK
950:"Sentencing Bench Book – Concurrent and consecutive sentences"
613:
Section 718.2 applies the totality principle by stating that:
1133:
1127:
86:
972:"Victorian Sentencing Manual 6.4 – The totality principle"
714:
Principles and Values in
Criminal Law and Criminal Justice
918:"Sentencing for Multiple Offences in Western Australia"
476:
principle which applies when a court imposes multiple
888:
1022:
545:
longer than a single sentence for a single offence.
711:Lucia Zedner, Julian V. Roberts (16 August 2012).
688:
539:The principle of totality comprises two elements:
1197:
524:Sentencing guidelines are contained within the
1059:R. v. D.F.P. (2005), 197 C.C.C. 498 (N.L.C.A.)
1025:Sentencing: State and Federal Law in Victoria
449:
684:
682:
894:"Definitive Guidelines TICS & Totality"
779:
944:
942:
808:
806:
804:
456:
442:
831:
747:
745:
706:
704:
679:
1130:, 234 CCC 3d 338, 437 AR 148 at para. 35
952:. Judicial Commission of New South Wales
910:
534:Offences Taken into Consideration (TICs)
986:
964:
939:
801:
1198:
742:
701:
665:The totality principle applies within
1068:
974:. State of Victoria Judicial College
587:(1988). It is also reflected in the
486:Court of Appeal of England and Wales
1136:, 225 CCC 3d 253 at paras. 20 to 31
13:
1048:R v Harris (2007) 171 A Crim R 267
1046:R v Knight (2005) 155 A Crim R 252
865:"Sentencing – Overview – Totality"
814:"8. Sentencing Multiple Offenders"
14:
1247:
1175:
502:
369:
1191:New Zealand Ministry of Justice
1142:
1120:
1111:
1094:
1081:
1062:
1053:
1040:
1037:R v MAK (2006) 167 A Crim R 159
1031:
1016:
1001:
925:University of Western Australia
818:New Zealand Ministry of Justice
780:Keith Ewing (5 November 2013).
28:Criminal trials and convictions
1211:Legal doctrines and principles
882:
857:
773:
654:
497:
318:Sexually violent predator laws
1:
1023:R Fox and A Freiberg (1999).
672:
526:Coroners and Justice Act 2009
998: at 8; (1988) 166 CLR 59
633:
572:
211:Cruel and unusual punishment
7:
1117:R. v. E.T.P., 2001 MBCA 194
689:Dr David A. Thomas (1970).
10:
1252:
1087:M. (C.A.), 1 S.C.R. 500,
1027:(2 ed.). p. 725.
1013:; (1997) 189 CLR 295, 308.
658:
637:
606:
576:
506:
413: English/Welsh courts
923:. Crime Research Centre,
890:Sentencing Advisory Panel
869:Crown Prosecution Service
602:
532:, applied along with the
519:Criminal Justice Act 2003
515:Criminal Justice Act 1991
67:Presumption of innocence
1150:"Sentencing Principles"
1071:Sentencing, 4th edition
1008:Postiglione v The Queen
782:"David Thomas obituary"
755:for England and Wales.
719:Oxford University Press
568:undermine that minimum.
229:Indefinite imprisonment
1050:R v Wheeler NSWCCA 34
565:Consecutive sentences:
552:
495:
288:Miscarriage of justice
1157:Department of Justice
1011:[1997] HCA 26
996:[1988] HCA 70
649:Department of Justice
559:Concurrent sentences:
541:
509:English and Welsh law
490:
313:Sex offender registry
33:Rights of the accused
757:"Totality guideline"
521:Section 166 (3)(b).
399:English/Welsh courts
327:Related areas of law
645:Hong Kong Basic Law
308:Restorative justice
1236:Law of New Zealand
843:Sentencing Council
753:Sentencing Council
530:Sentencing Council
470:totality principle
198:Capital punishment
190:Dangerous offender
77:Self-incrimination
22:Criminal procedure
466:
465:
341:Criminal defenses
283:Habitual offender
234:Three-strikes law
224:Life imprisonment
203:Execution warrant
72:Exclusionary rule
1243:
1231:Law of Hong Kong
1216:Law of Australia
1206:Sentencing (law)
1169:
1168:
1166:
1164:
1154:
1146:
1140:
1124:
1118:
1115:
1109:
1098:
1092:
1085:
1079:
1078:
1066:
1060:
1057:
1051:
1044:
1038:
1035:
1029:
1028:
1020:
1014:
1005:
999:
990:
984:
983:
981:
979:
968:
962:
961:
959:
957:
946:
937:
936:
934:
932:
922:
914:
908:
907:
905:
903:
898:
886:
880:
879:
877:
875:
861:
855:
854:
852:
850:
835:
829:
828:
826:
824:
810:
799:
798:
796:
794:
777:
771:
770:
768:
766:
761:
749:
740:
739:
737:
735:
708:
699:
698:
686:
640:Law of Hong Kong
458:
451:
444:
430:
422:
414:
409:
401:
393:
374:
373:
273:Criminal justice
127:Directed verdict
18:
17:
1251:
1250:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1242:
1241:
1240:
1196:
1195:
1178:
1173:
1172:
1162:
1160:
1152:
1148:
1147:
1143:
1139:
1137:
1131:
1125:
1121:
1116:
1112:
1104:
1100:R. v. Keshane,
1099:
1095:
1089:1996 CanLII 230
1086:
1082:
1067:
1063:
1058:
1054:
1049:
1047:
1045:
1041:
1036:
1032:
1021:
1017:
1006:
1002:
991:
987:
977:
975:
970:
969:
965:
955:
953:
948:
947:
940:
930:
928:
920:
916:
915:
911:
901:
899:
896:
887:
883:
873:
871:
863:
862:
858:
848:
846:
837:
836:
832:
822:
820:
812:
811:
802:
792:
790:
778:
774:
764:
762:
759:
750:
743:
733:
731:
729:
721:. p. 286.
709:
702:
687:
680:
675:
667:New Zealand law
663:
661:New Zealand law
657:
642:
636:
619:Canadian courts
611:
605:
589:Crimes Act 1914
581:
575:
511:
505:
500:
462:
433:
425:
420:Canadian courts
417:
412:
407:Scottish courts
404:
396:
388:
380:
368:
355:
336:Civil procedure
322:
243:Post-sentencing
238:
207:
181:
131:
96:
82:Double jeopardy
12:
11:
5:
1249:
1239:
1238:
1233:
1228:
1223:
1218:
1213:
1208:
1194:
1193:
1184:
1177:
1176:External links
1174:
1171:
1170:
1141:
1132:R v Abrosimo,
1119:
1110:
1093:
1080:
1061:
1052:
1039:
1030:
1015:
1000:
985:
963:
938:
909:
881:
856:
845:. 6 March 2012
830:
800:
772:
741:
728:978-0199696796
727:
700:
677:
676:
674:
671:
659:Main article:
656:
653:
638:Main article:
635:
632:
631:
630:
627:
607:Main article:
604:
601:
579:Australian law
577:Main article:
574:
571:
570:
569:
562:
551:
550:
546:
507:Main article:
504:
503:United Kingdom
501:
499:
496:
464:
463:
461:
460:
453:
446:
438:
435:
434:
432:
431:
423:
415:
410:
402:
394:
385:
382:
381:
379:
378:
376:Law portal
365:
362:
361:
357:
356:
354:
353:
348:
343:
338:
332:
329:
328:
324:
323:
321:
320:
315:
310:
305:
303:Rehabilitation
300:
295:
290:
285:
280:
275:
270:
265:
259:
254:
248:
245:
244:
240:
239:
237:
236:
231:
226:
221:
215:
214:
213:
206:
205:
200:
194:
193:
192:
187:
180:
179:
174:
169:
164:
159:
154:
149:
143:
140:
139:
133:
132:
130:
129:
124:
119:
114:
108:
105:
104:
98:
97:
95:
94:
89:
84:
79:
74:
69:
64:
59:
54:
49:
44:
38:
35:
34:
30:
29:
25:
24:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1248:
1237:
1234:
1232:
1229:
1227:
1224:
1222:
1221:Law of Canada
1219:
1217:
1214:
1212:
1209:
1207:
1204:
1203:
1201:
1192:
1188:
1185:
1183:
1180:
1179:
1158:
1151:
1145:
1135:
1134:2007 BCCA 406
1129:
1128:2008 ABCA 293
1123:
1114:
1108:
1105:R. v. Hicks,
1103:
1097:
1090:
1084:
1076:
1072:
1069:Ruby (1994).
1065:
1056:
1043:
1034:
1026:
1019:
1012:
1009:
1004:
997:
994:
989:
973:
967:
951:
945:
943:
926:
919:
913:
895:
891:
885:
870:
866:
860:
844:
840:
834:
819:
815:
809:
807:
805:
789:
788:
783:
776:
758:
754:
748:
746:
730:
724:
720:
716:
715:
707:
705:
696:
692:
685:
683:
678:
670:
668:
662:
652:
650:
646:
641:
628:
625:
624:
623:
620:
616:
610:
600:
596:
594:
590:
586:
580:
566:
563:
560:
557:
556:
555:
547:
543:
542:
540:
537:
535:
531:
527:
522:
520:
516:
510:
494:
489:
487:
483:
479:
475:
471:
459:
454:
452:
447:
445:
440:
439:
437:
436:
429:
424:
421:
416:
411:
408:
403:
400:
397: Not in
395:
392:
387:
386:
384:
383:
377:
372:
367:
366:
364:
363:
359:
358:
352:
349:
347:
344:
342:
339:
337:
334:
333:
331:
330:
326:
325:
319:
316:
314:
311:
309:
306:
304:
301:
299:
296:
294:
291:
289:
286:
284:
281:
279:
276:
274:
271:
269:
266:
263:
260:
258:
255:
253:
250:
249:
247:
246:
242:
241:
235:
232:
230:
227:
225:
222:
220:
217:
216:
212:
209:
208:
204:
201:
199:
196:
195:
191:
188:
186:
183:
182:
178:
175:
173:
170:
168:
165:
163:
160:
158:
155:
153:
150:
148:
145:
144:
142:
141:
138:
135:
134:
128:
125:
123:
120:
118:
115:
113:
110:
109:
107:
106:
103:
100:
99:
93:
90:
88:
85:
83:
80:
78:
75:
73:
70:
68:
65:
63:
60:
58:
55:
53:
50:
48:
45:
43:
40:
39:
37:
36:
32:
31:
27:
26:
23:
20:
19:
16:
1161:. Retrieved
1144:
1126:R v Wharry,
1122:
1113:
1107:2007 NLCA 41
1102:2005 SKCA 18
1096:
1083:
1075:Butterworths
1070:
1064:
1055:
1042:
1033:
1024:
1018:
1007:
1003:
992:
988:
976:. Retrieved
966:
954:. Retrieved
929:. Retrieved
927:. p. 34
912:
900:. Retrieved
884:
872:. Retrieved
859:
847:. Retrieved
833:
821:. Retrieved
791:. Retrieved
787:The Guardian
785:
775:
763:. Retrieved
732:. Retrieved
713:
690:
664:
643:
614:
612:
609:Canadian law
597:
588:
584:
582:
564:
558:
553:
538:
523:
512:
491:
482:imprisonment
469:
467:
346:Criminal law
268:Life licence
219:Imprisonment
184:
52:Speedy trial
15:
1226:English law
655:New Zealand
498:Application
278:Exoneration
1200:Categories
1091:at para 42
956:30 January
931:1 February
765:1 February
673:References
593:s 16B
474:common law
298:Recidivism
172:Guidelines
137:Sentencing
122:Not proven
112:Conviction
57:Jury trial
42:Fair trial
695:Heinemann
634:Hong Kong
573:Australia
478:sentences
428:UK courts
391:US courts
257:Probation
167:Discharge
157:Custodial
152:Suspended
147:Mandatory
117:Acquittal
47:Pre-trial
993:Mill v R
585:Mill v R
351:Evidence
185:Totality
162:Periodic
1189:at the
360:Portals
102:Verdict
62:Counsel
1163:4 July
1159:. 2011
978:4 July
902:4 July
874:4 July
849:4 July
823:4 July
793:4 July
734:4 July
725:
603:Canada
591:(Cth)
549:whole.
426:
418:
405:
389:
293:Pardon
264:
262:Tariff
252:Parole
92:Appeal
1153:(PDF)
921:(PDF)
897:(PDF)
760:(PDF)
472:is a
177:Guilt
1165:2014
980:2014
958:2015
933:2015
904:2014
876:2014
851:2014
825:2014
795:2014
767:2015
736:2014
723:ISBN
468:The
87:Bail
480:of
1202::
1155:.
1073:.
941:^
892:.
867:.
841:.
816:.
803:^
784:.
744:^
717:.
703:^
693:.
681:^
651:.
595:.
488::
1167:.
1077:.
982:.
960:.
935:.
906:.
878:.
853:.
827:.
797:.
769:.
738:.
697:.
457:e
450:t
443:v
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.