When imposing an aggregate sentence for multiple fraud offences, a sentencing judge must explain the methodology used to distinguish more serious indicative sentences from less serious ones, including the criteria applied. However, error in individual indicative sentences does not necessarily infect the aggregate sentence if the aggregate properly reflects the totality of criminality. In fraud cases, far greater assistance is gained from general sentencing principles than from comparable cases due to the enormous variation in objective and subjective circumstances.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 2 later cases that cite this judgment.
1 of the 2 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.