Canadian Criminal Sentencing/Purpose and Principles of Sentencing/Totality Principle

General Principles
Section 718.2, states "c) where consecutive sentences are imposed, the combined sentence should not be unduly long or harsh;"

The principle of totality comes into play where there is a sentence for multiple offences. The principle requires the court to craft a global sentence of all offences that is not excessive. If the total sentence is excessive the court must adjust the sentence so that the "total sentence is proper".

The totality principle was "intended to avoid sentences that cumulatively are out of proportion to the gravity of the offences"

The sentence may violate the totality principle where the global sentence considerably exceeds the "normal" level of the most serious of the individual offences.

The sentence may also violate the principle where the global sentence "exceeds what is appropriate given the offender's overall culpability.

Depending on the jurisdiction, this process can be done either by summing the individual sentences and then adjusting accordingly or by making a global sentence and calculating individual sentences from that number. It is more frequently the former than the latter.

The Newfoundland and Labrador Court of Appeal decision in R v Hutchings sets out "guidelines for the analytical approach to be taken" when considering applying the principle of totality:

It has been suggested that where there are multiple counts from a single transaction, the best practice is to first consider the worst of the offences and then assess what affect the collateral offences have on the overall culpability, thus treating the lesser offences as modifiers of the initial sentence.

Totality can be applied to spree crimes, a string of similar offences over a short period of time. Though they are separate offences, the courts can treat them as a single transaction due to the linkage between them. This form of totality must be considered carefully as it should not give the impression that offences are "cheaper" when done in succession. It has a reduction effect in part due to the frequency that the offender is young and rehabilitation is still a major consideration.