The court discussed the use of concurrent sentences: ‘we do not consider that there is a principle that a trial judge necessarily errs if he imposes concurrent and not consecutive sentences. Moreover, we consider that in Northern Ireland concurrent sentences are imposed more frequently than in England. We are of opinion that it would be undesirable in this jurisdiction to limit the discretion of the trial judge as to whether he should impose concurrent or consecutive sentence. The over-riding concern must be that the total global sentence, whether made up of concurrent or consecutive sentences, must be appropriate. In some cases a judge may achieve this result more satisfactorily by imposing consecutive sentences. In other cases he may achieve it more satisfactorily by imposing concurrent sentences . . We stress that, whether the sentences are concurrent or consecutive, the over-riding and important consideration is that the total global sentence should be just and appropriate.’
Judges:
Hutton LCJ
Citations:
[1991] NI 218
Cited by:
Cited – Rooney and Others, Re Attorney General’s Reference (Number 1 of 2005) CANI 11-Nov-2005
The defendants had been convicted or armed robbery. The Attorney General appealed against the sentences saying they were too lenient. Rooney argued that his plea of guilty had been after an indication by the judge and the reference was misguided. . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Northern Ireland, Criminal Sentencing
Updated: 14 May 2022; Ref: scu.234986