R. v Hanna, 2013 ABCA 134 holds:
 The sentencing judge did not proportion the totality discount between the two offences. The practice of imposing “global” sentences for multiple offences is to be discouraged, because it undermines the transparency of the sentencing process. Section 726.2 of the Criminal Code requires that reasons be given for sentencing:
726.2 When imposing a sentence, a court shall state the terms of the sentence imposed, and the reasons for it, and enter those terms and reasons into the record of the proceedings.
The need for reasons is emphasized in other provisions. For example, credit for pretrial custody must be clearly specified:
719(3.3) The court shall cause to be stated in the record and on the warrant of committal the offence, the amount of time spent in custody, the term of imprisonment that would have been imposed before any credit was granted, the amount of time credited, if any, and the sentence imposed.
Section 718.3(4) provides that where an accused is sentenced for multiple offences the court “may direct that the terms of imprisonment . . . shall be served consecutively”. This provision, especially when read in light of s. 726.2, contemplates that the sentencing court will specify the length of each individual sentence.
 In this case the sentencing judge reduced the cumulative sentence of 7 years to 5½ years, without specifying on the record how the reduction for totality would be allocated between the two offences. The clerk of the court subsequently endorsed the record to show a sentence of 5 years (the maximum) for driving while disqualified, and 6 months for dangerous driving. The record does not show how the clerk came to make that allocation; if it was done based on specific instructions from the sentencing judge, those instructions should have been documented, for example by a handwritten endorsement on the record, or verbally on the transcript. Since the Court of Queen’s Bench is a court of record, its records are presumed to be accurate without further inquiry: Re Sproule1886 CanLII 51 (SCC), (1886), 12 SCR 140 at p. 194; R. v Miller, 1985 CanLII 22 (SCC),  2 SCR 613 at pp. 631, 633. This Court must therefore proceed on the assumption that the allocation recorded by the clerk is accurate.