Ugle v The State of Western Australia

The appeal was against the appellant's sentence for 13 offences, including multiple counts of aggravated sexual penetration without consent, deprivation of liberty, aggravated home burglary, aggravated robbery and threatening to compel an act. The appellant was sentenced to a total effective term of 23 years 6 months' imprisonment. The appellant argued that the total effective sentence infringed both limbs of the totality principle. The Court held that the appeal should be dismissed. The totality principle comprises two limbs. The first limb is that the total effective sentence must bear a proper relationship to the overall criminality involved in all the offences, viewed in their entirety and having regard to the circumstances of the case, including those referable to the offender personally. The second limb is that the court should not impose a 'crushing' sentence. The court considered the overall criminality involved in the commission of the offences, viewed in their entirety, and the many aggravating and limited mitigating factors identified by the trial judge. The court held that it was reasonably open to the trial judge to regard some degree of accumulation of individual sentences to be called for to reflect the overall seriousness of all the appellant's offending. The total effective sentence of 23 years 6 months' imprisonment was within the discretionary range properly open to the trial judge. The total effective sentence of 23 years 6 months' imprisonment did not infringe the first limb of the totality principle. It was not unreasonable or plainly unjust. Nor has the appellant established a breach of the second limb of the totality principle.