› Cumulation and concurrency — separate incursions into crime
Criminal law
› Sentencing
› Credit for time served — preferred methodology
Criminal law
› Sentencing
› Suspension of sentence — good reason
Quick Take
1Offences connected in time and circumstance and driven by a common grievance may still be properly characterised as separate incursions into crime warranting full accumulation where the offender had opportunities between offences to reflect and desist. Partial concurrency was open, but full accumulation was not error where the total sentence was not disproportionate to the offending as a whole.
2When crediting time served in custody, the preferable course, at least where custody is continuous, is to backdate both the head sentence and the non-parole period. Where backdating is not possible, the court should fix both and then reduce each for time served, including time on home detention bail, so that day-for-day credit is transparent. Deducting from the head sentence only and then fixing a non-parole period is discouraged, though on the facts no error was shown because the low non-parole proportion (about 55 per cent) indicated the credit had been taken into account.
3A victim's fear for his safety arising from the charged conduct is a reflection of the impact of the offending, not uncharged conduct, and may be considered at sentence provided it is not treated as a separate aggravating feature.
