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]

#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.

  1. 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

Robbery is the crime of taking or attempting to take anything of value by force, threat of force, or by putting the victim in fear. According to common law, robbery is defined as taking the property of another, with the intent to permanently deprive the person of that property, by means of force or fear; that is, it is a larceny or theft accomplished by an assault. Precise definitions of the offence may vary between jurisdictions. Robbery is differentiated from other forms of theft by its inherently violent nature ; whereas many lesser forms of theft are punished as misdemeanors, robbery is always a felony in jurisdictions that distinguish between the two. Under English law, most forms of theft are triable either way, whereas robbery is triable only on indictment. The word "rob" came via French from Late Latin words of Germanic origin, from Common Germanic raub "theft".

Life imprisonment is any sentence of imprisonment for a crime under which convicted people are to remain in prison for the rest of their natural lives or indefinitely until pardoned, paroled, or otherwise commuted to a fixed term. Crimes for which, in some countries, a person could receive this sentence include murder, torture, terrorism, child abuse resulting in death, rape, espionage, treason, drug trafficking, drug possession, human trafficking, severe fraud and financial crimes, aggravated criminal damage, arson, kidnapping, burglary, and robbery, piracy, aircraft hijacking, and genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes or any three felonies in case of three-strikes law. Life imprisonment can also be imposed, in certain countries, for traffic offences causing death. Life imprisonment is not used in all countries; Portugal was the first country to abolish life imprisonment, in 1885.

<i>Youth Criminal Justice Act</i> Canadian statute

The Youth Criminal Justice Act is a Canadian statute, which came into effect on April 1, 2003. It covers the prosecution of youths for criminal offences. The Act replaced the Young Offenders Act, which itself was a replacement for the Juvenile Delinquents Act.

In 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.

Grievous bodily harm is a term used in English criminal law to describe the severest forms of battery. It refers to two offences that are respectively created by sections 18 and 20 of the Offences against the Person Act 1861. The distinction between these two sections is the requirement of specific intent for section 18; the offence under section 18 is variously referred to as "wounding with intent" or "causing grievous bodily harm with intent", whereas the offence under section 20 is variously referred to as "unlawful wounding", "malicious wounding" or "inflicting grievous bodily harm".

A habitual offender, repeat offender, or career criminal, is a person convicted of a crime who was previously convicted of 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.

The Rehabilitation of Offenders Act 1974 (c.53) 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.

A discharge is a type of sentence imposed by a court whereby no punishment is imposed.

The Criminal Justice Act 2003 is an Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. It is a wide-ranging measure introduced to modernise many areas of the criminal justice system in England and Wales and, to a lesser extent, in Scotland and Northern Ireland.

Murder is an offence under the common law of England and Wales. It is considered the most serious form of homicide, in which one person kills another with the intention to cause either death or serious injury unlawfully. 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.

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.

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.

Criminal sentencing in Canada 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.

Rape is a statutory offence in England and Wales. The offence is created by section 1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003:

(1) A person (A) commits an offence if—

(2) Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.
(3) Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.

(4) A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

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 his/her criminal record and the defendant's personal circumstances such as their financial circumstances in the case of a fine being imposed.

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.