R v Aitchison (No 3)

In the case of R v Aitchison (No 3), the respondent, Aitchison, was convicted of sexual intercourse with a young person and an act of indecency with a young person. Aitchison appealed against his sentence to the Supreme Court of Victoria. The appeal was based on the contention that the trial judge had failed to adequately consider the totality principle when imposing the sentence. The court was required to determine whether the trial judge's failure to consider the totality principle amounted to a jurisdictional error, which would warrant the court intervening to correct the sentence.

The court began by noting that the totality principle required the sentencing judge to consider the totality of the sentence imposed on the offender, including any concurrent or consecutive sentences, to ensure that the sentence was proportionate and just. The court held that while the trial judge had made a number of remarks about the seriousness of the offences, the judge had not explicitly referred to the totality principle. However, the court found that the judge had implicitly considered the totality principle by imposing a relatively lenient sentence for the act of indecency, which was to run concurrently with the sentence for sexual intercourse. The court held that the trial judge had not made a jurisdictional error in failing to explicitly refer to the totality principle, as the sentence imposed was proportionate and just.

In light of the above, the court dismissed the appeal against sentence. The court held that the sentence imposed by the trial judge was appropriate and did not require correction. The court did not make any orders to vary the sentence.