R v Mangelen

The case of R v Mangelen involved a defendant appealing his sentence. The defendant had been sentenced to an initial term in prison, followed by a parole sentence. However, fresh evidence emerged that the parole had been cancelled, the length of the parole sentence was shorter than originally thought, and there had been events in prison that made the sentence more burdensome. The defendant argued that these factors should lead to a reduction in his sentence under the totality principle. The defendant further argued that the events in prison, which he claimed were not a consequence of his conduct, should be taken into account.

The court was required to determine whether the fresh evidence about the parole cancellation, the length of the parole sentence, and the events in prison justified a reduction in the defendant's sentence. The court also had to consider the limits of the totality principle and whether the defendant had discharged the burden of proving that the events in prison were not a consequence of his conduct.

The court found that the fresh evidence did not justify a reduction in the defendant's sentence. The court noted that the parole sentence had been one year and ten months, and the further sentence imposed was 18 months, six months of which were cumulative on sentences being served. This resulted in a total additional sentence of two years and four months. The court held that the totality principle should not result in a reduction of the sentence to the extent that it would become an unjust or inappropriate measure of the total criminality involved. Furthermore, the defendant had failed to discharge the burden of establishing that the events in prison were not a consequence of his conduct.

The appeal was dismissed. The court held that the sentence was not an unjust or inappropriate measure of the total criminality involved, and the defendant had not discharged the burden of proving that the events in prison were not a consequence of his conduct. The court found that the totality principle did not justify a reduction in the defendant's sentence.