A comparison of sentences imposed on co-offenders for the purpose of assessing disparity is complicated, if not invalidated, where multiple concurrent sentences have been imposed on one offender, because it would be misleading to regard the offender as having been sentenced to the individual sentence for one offence without also having regard to the fact that the sentence was made concurrent with sentences for other offences.
James J, Howie J, Rothman J
Where a money laundering offence arises out of the same transaction as the underlying fraud, a wholly cumulative sentence for the money laundering offence may be erroneous, though partial accumulation may be warranted where there is some additional criminality. Disparity arguments between co-offenders are weakened where there are significant differences in criminality, personal circumstances, and the structure of concurrent sentences imposed on each offender.
No headnote yet — we'll generate the full structured AI headnote for you.
Generate the headnoteFree trial · no card required
Legal principles extracted from this case
Cases considered by R v Denigris
Cases that have considered R v Denigris
Referred to (1)
Judicial Consideration (Chronological)