Ql v R

The Court of Criminal Appeal held that 'grossing up' an aggregate sentence by reversing the discount to approximate the undiscounted starting point is a permissible, though rough, analytical tool for comparison purposes, endorsing the approach in Richardson v R and MJR v R over the contrary view expressed by Adamson J in Davidson v R. The Court also held that when assessing whether an aggregate sentence reflects excessive cumulation, the proper analysis requires consideration of the constraints in s 47 CSPA on commencement dates of cumulative sentences, rather than simply comparing the arithmetic total of indicative sentences to the aggregate — the applicant's approach of comparing the sum of discounted indicative sentences (26 years) to the aggregate (12 years) was fundamentally flawed. On the facts, substantial cumulation between the 2018 and 2020 offences was warranted given the offending on bail, and the aggregate sentence of 12 years was well within range.