The principle applies to ensure the overall sentence is fit and not unduly harsh. Totality involves "one last look" (R. v. Reader (M.), 2008 MBCA 42 at para. 26) or "a final look" (R. v. Adams, 2010 NSCA 42 at para. 23) at the overall sentence to determine whether the total punishment is "just and appropriate" and "not excessive"(R. v. English (E.) (1994), 122 Nfld. & P.E.I.R. 15 (Nfld.C.A.) at, respectively, paras. 30 and 36) and is reflective of the overall culpability of the offender.
The entire decision is worth a close review. The Court's direction on totality follows:
[84] The foregoing analysis, as well as the fact that the Ruby formulation which was referred to in M.(C.A.), pre-dated ss. 718.1 and 718.2(c), requires a restatement of the applicable approach. I would state the following as guidelines for the analytical approach to be taken henceforth:
1. When sentencing for multiple offences, the sentencing judge should commence by identifying a proper sentence for each offence, applying proper sentencing principles.
2. The judge should then consider whether any of the individual sentences should be made consecutive or concurrent on the ground that they constitute a single criminal adventure, without consideration of the totality principle at this stage.
3. Whenever, following the determinations in steps 1 and 2, the imposition of two or more sentences, to be served consecutively, is indicated, the application of the totality principle is potentially engaged. The sentencing judge must therefore turn his or her mind to its application.
4. The approach is to take one last look at the combined sentence to determine whether it is unduly long or harsh, in the sense that it is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender.
5. In determining whether the combined sentence is unduly long or harsh and not proportionate to the gravity of the offence and the degree of responsibility of the offender, the sentencing court should, to the extent of their relevance in the particular circumstances of the case, take into account, and balance, the following factors:
(a) the length of the combined sentence in relation to the normal level of sentence for the most serious of the individual offences involved;
(b) the number and gravity of the offences involved;
(c) the offender's criminal record;
(d) the impact of the combined sentence on the offender's prospects for rehabilitation, in the sense that it may be harsh or crushing;
(e) such other factors as may be appropriate to consider to ensure that the combined sentence is proportionate to the gravity of the offences and the offender's degree of responsibility.
6. Where the sentencing judge concludes, in light of the application of those factors identified in Step 5 that are deemed to be relevant, that the combined sentence is unduly long or harsh and not proportionate to the gravity of the offences and the offender's degree of responsibility, the judge should proceed to determine the extent to which the combined sentence should be reduced to achieve a proper totality. If, on the other hand, the judge concludes that the combined sentence is not unduly long or harsh, the sentence must stand.
7. Where the sentencing court determines that it is appropriate to reduce the combined sentence to achieve a proper totality, it should first attempt to adjust one or more of the sentences by making it or them concurrent with other sentences, but if that does not achieve the proper result, the court may in addition, or instead, reduce the length of an individual sentence below what it would otherwise have been.
8. In imposing individual sentences adjusted for totality, the judge should be careful to identify:
(a) the sentences that are regarded as appropriate for each individual offence applying proper sentencing principles, without considerations of totality;
(b) the degree to which sentences have been made concurrent on the basis that they constitute a single criminal adventure; and
(c) the methodology employed to achieve the proper totality that is indicated, identifying which individual sentences are, for this purpose, to be made concurrent or to be otherwise reduced.
9. Finally, the sentencing judge should indicate whether one or more of the resulting sentences should be further reduced to reflect any credit for pre-trial custody and if so, by how much.
No comments:
Post a Comment