The Court of Appeal held that it was open to the sentencing judge to impose an aggregate sentence under s 9(1) of the Sentencing Act 1991 notwithstanding variation in the objective gravity of the offences, where the offending occurred within a short 18-day period, was connected by a common purpose of property theft, arose in the same personal circumstances, and attracted identical mitigating factors. The Court characterised the appropriateness of the aggregate sentence as a 'borderline question' and emphasised that the principles in Grossi and Hassall are not exhaustive and should not be applied as if statutory, such that some variation in seriousness does not necessarily preclude an aggregate sentence. The Court further held that even if error were established, there was no reasonable prospect of a less severe sentence being imposed under s 280(1) of the Criminal Procedure Act 2009.
The full text is available to signed-in members.