concurrent

miseeire

Can anybody please explain to me the logic behind concurrent sentencing?It appears to me that punishment is not handed down for all offences if concurrent sentences are imposed.I read today where a criminal with previous fraud "form"was given a concurrent sentence to run hand in hand with the remainder of her current sentence.Am I missing something?Surely each crime should be dealt with as a separate wrongdoing and punished accordingly!

MagicSean

miseeire wrote: »

Can anybody please explain to me the logic behind concurrent sentencing?It appears to me that punishment is not handed down for all offences if concurrent sentences are imposed.I read today where a criminal with previous fraud "form"was given a concurrent sentence to run hand in hand with the remainder of her current sentence.Am I missing something?Surely each crime should be dealt with as a separate wrongdoing and punished accordingly!

Usually i've only seen concurrent sentences handed down when the person was on bail or temporary release when they comittes the offence.

Its not like they get off scot free. Its still considered a seperate conviction which counts against them in any future court cases.

Tom Young

Where a person is convicted of two or more offences, the question arises whether the sentences are to run concurrently or consecutively.

Concurrent means the sentences run at the same time as each other.
Consecutive means they run one after the other.

Therefore, it is always in the interest of the offender to receive concurrent,
rather than consecutive sentences.

There are certain situations – offences committed while on bail – where the sentencing judge must impose consecutive sentences.

In all other cases, it is a matter for the discretion of the sentencing judge whether to impose concurrent or consecutive sentences.

Concurrent sentences are the norm and the discretion should generally be exercised in favour of concurrent sentencing.

The “Totality Principle” provides that a sentence will only be interfered with if too high or too low a tariff was imposed, in the light of all the circumstances of the case. The sentencing court should therefore be guided by what is the just overall sentence in any particular case, and then structure it appropriately in terms of concurrent and consecutive sentences. This principle should be applied even in cases where consecutive sentences are mandatory.

Scenarios for consideration:

1. One victim one incident;
2. One victim separate incidents; and
3. Different victims.

1. One victim one incident:

Generally concurrent sentences are appropriate. Therefore the offender will serve only the longest sentence imposed.

2. One victim separate incidents:

The court has discretion. An appellate court will be unlikely to interfere with the sentence if the total sentence is just, irrespective of how it is structured in terms of concurrent/consecutive. This is the “totality principle”.

See:

DPP v. Z CCA unreported 14 March 1995
DPP v. McKenna [2002] 2 IR 345


3. Different victims:

The court has discretion. Whether the court imposes concurrent or consecutive sentences will depend on the judge/s, the circumstances of the case and the legal arguments advanced by Counsel.

The court will be influenced by:

1. the totality principle
2. whether there was one incident or separate incidents
3. if separate incidents were in close proximity to each other
4. any circumstances of particular depravity or brutality accompanying the offence.

DPP v. Byrne [1995] 1 ILRM 279
DPP v. Whelan [2003] 4 IR 355
DPP v. G. McC. [2003] 3 IR 609 CCA