When imposing an aggregate sentence for multiple offences against multiple victims, the sentencing judge is not required to make explicit or specify with precision the degree to which indicative sentences would be concurrent or accumulated, nor to state notional totals for each complainant or between complainants. The transparency required by s 53A is limited to the nomination of indicative sentences reflecting the criminality of each offence; it does not extend to requiring the judge to explain how those indicative sentences 'translate' into the aggregate sentence. An error in an indicative sentence that exceeds the maximum penalty for the offence has the capacity to influence the aggregate sentence where the error is not immaterial and there is no indication the count was treated as wholly concurrent.
The full text is available to signed-in members, including the 34 later cases that cite this judgment.
25 of the 34 citing cases carry a classified treatment. How each court treated it is available to signed-in members.