Concurrent And Consecutive Sentences
1. Overview: Concurrent vs Consecutive Sentences
In Canada, when an offender is convicted of multiple offences, the sentencing court must decide whether sentences should run:
Concurrently – All sentences are served at the same time, with the longest term governing the total time in custody.
Consecutively – Sentences are served back-to-back, summing the durations for total time in custody.
Statutory Provisions:
Criminal Code s. 718.3: Sets factors for consecutive sentences.
s. 719(3): Courts may order sentences to be concurrent or consecutive.
2. Principles Guiding Concurrent vs Consecutive Sentences
Totality Principle:
Sentences must be proportionate to the overall criminality and avoid being unduly harsh.
Aggravating and Mitigating Factors:
Courts weigh gravity of offences, harm to victims, and offender’s role.
Overlap of Offences:
If offences arise from same incident, courts prefer concurrent sentences.
Distinct acts may justify consecutive sentences.
Judicial Discretion:
Courts have discretion; appellate courts intervene if sentences are unreasonable or disproportionate.
3. Case Law Analysis
Case 1: R v. M. (C.A.), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500
Facts:
Accused convicted of multiple sexual assaults.
Trial judge imposed consecutive sentences.
Outcome:
SCC held consecutive sentences appropriate due to distinct criminal acts, but emphasized totality principle to prevent excessive punishment.
Significance:
Established that distinct acts justify consecutive sentences while still respecting proportionality.
Case 2: R v. Nur, 2015 SCC 15
Facts:
Accused convicted of multiple firearm offences.
Court imposed consecutive sentences totaling 15 years.
Outcome:
SCC upheld sentences, noting public safety and deterrence as important factors.
Confirmed that consecutive sentences are justified for multiple serious offences.
Significance:
Reinforced that serious offences, especially involving weapons, can merit consecutive sentencing to reflect gravity.
Case 3: R v. Latimer, [2001] 1 S.C.R. 3
Facts:
Accused convicted of second-degree murder and related charges.
Sentences ordered consecutively.
Outcome:
SCC reviewed totality, noting consecutive sentences appropriate due to severity and moral blameworthiness.
Significance:
Illustrates how totality principle moderates consecutive sentences in cases with exceptional public interest.
Case 4: R v. C.A.M., [1996] 1 S.C.R. 500
Facts:
Accused involved in multiple robberies in same series of events.
Trial judge imposed concurrent sentences.
Outcome:
SCC held concurrent sentences appropriate because offences were closely connected in time and circumstances.
Significance:
Confirms overlapping offences usually result in concurrent sentences.
Case 5: R v. Proulx, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 61
Facts:
Accused convicted of multiple assaults.
Lower court imposed consecutive sentences.
Outcome:
SCC upheld but emphasized proportionality and totality principle.
Court must ensure overall punishment is just and not crushing.
Significance:
Reinforces that consecutive sentences must be justified and balanced with totality principle.
Case 6: R v. Nasogaluak, [2010] 1 S.C.R. 206
Facts:
Accused convicted of multiple firearm and robbery offences.
Trial judge imposed mixed consecutive and concurrent sentences.
Outcome:
SCC upheld sentencing, noting distinction between separate criminal objectives.
Emphasized judicial discretion and reasoned sentencing.
Significance:
Demonstrates flexibility in structuring sentences based on nature and timing of offences.
Case 7: R v. Arcand, [2010] O.J. No. 4521 (ONCA)
Facts:
Accused convicted of multiple fraud offences.
Sentences initially concurrent.
Outcome:
Court of Appeal varied to consecutive for distinct financial harm caused over time.
Significance:
Shows appellate review can adjust sentences to better reflect gravity and culpability.
4. Key Principles Derived from Case Law
| Principle | Explanation | Case Reference |
|---|---|---|
| Totality Principle | Overall sentence must be proportionate | R v. M. (C.A.), R v. Latimer |
| Distinct vs Overlapping Acts | Consecutive for distinct acts, concurrent for related acts | R v. M. (C.A.), R v. C.A.M. |
| Public Safety & Deterrence | Serious offences may justify consecutive sentences | R v. Nur, R v. Nasogaluak |
| Appellate Review | Courts can vary sentences if unreasonable | R v. Arcand |
| Judicial Discretion | Courts weigh circumstances, harm, and offender role | R v. Proulx, R v. Latimer |
5. Analysis of Effectiveness
Strengths:
Provides flexibility to reflect gravity and distinctness of offences.
Totality principle prevents excessive or crushing sentences.
Appellate courts ensure consistency and fairness across cases.
Limitations:
Discretion may lead to variation across jurisdictions.
Complexity may make sentences less predictable.
RELATED Blog
comments