Court of Criminal Appeal Citation : R v Faithfull

(2004) 142 A Crim R 554; [2004] WASCA 39

Western Australia Court of Appeal

Built by Barristers,
For Australian Law.

See how it works

Interrogate

Catchwords

1. Criminal Law
2. › Sentencing
3. › Multiple offences
4. › Cumulation and concurrence
5. › One transaction rule
6. › Whether one transaction rule mandates concurrent sentences
7. › Whether rule is a principle of law or a good working rule
8. › Criminal Code (WA), s 378(7), s 586(1)
1. Criminal Law
2. › Appeal
3. › Crown appeal against sentence
4. › Whether sentencing judge erred in principle
5. › Whether different sentence should have been passed
6. › Double jeopardy on re-sentencing
7. › Criminal Code (WA), s 689(3)

Quick Take

The one transaction rule does not mandate concurrent sentences; it is a 'good working rule' that must be assessed against the totality principle to ensure the aggregate sentence reflects the total criminality. Even where offences form part of one transaction, a sentencing judge must consider whether concurrent sentences adequately reflect the total criminality, and if not, should make sentences partially cumulative rather than adjusting individual sentences.