R v Bagnato

The case of *R v Bagnato* concerned an appeal against a sentence imposed by a judge in the South Australian criminal jurisdiction. The appellant had pleaded guilty to several offences, including aggravated causing serious harm by dangerous driving, assault causing harm, aggravated assault, and two further counts of assault. The sentencing judge had imposed a single term of imprisonment of 10 years with a non-parole period of eight years, pursuant to section 18A of the *Criminal Law (Sentencing) Act 1988* (SA), and disqualified the appellant from holding a driver's licence for ten years.

The appellant raised three grounds of appeal. Firstly, it was argued that the sentencing judge erred by applying notional sentences to each offence but failing to give sufficient consideration to the concurrency, in whole or in part, of these notional sentences. Secondly, the appellant contended that the principle of totality required a lesser sentence given the cumulative effect of the offences. Finally, it was argued that the overall sentence imposed was manifestly excessive.

The Court of Appeal considered the doctrine of concurrency of sentences, noting that offences committed in the course of a single transaction should generally be served concurrently. The court identified that the assault offences committed by the appellant occurred within minutes of each other, at the same location, and followed a common precursor, the dangerous driving incident. These factors strongly indicated that at least partial concurrency of the sentences for these offences should have been afforded. The court also addressed the "one-transaction rule," which posits that sentences for offences arising from a single transaction should be concurrent. The appellant's argument was that the sentencing judge, despite properly identifying notional sentences, had not adequately considered the interconnectedness of the offences when determining the final sentence.