Tokens: By
contrast
,
there
is
only
one
relevant
Code
in
the
present
case
,
namely
the
2008
Criminal
Code
,
which
was
applicable
at
the
time
the
applicant
was
given
a
final
sentence
of
thirty
years
for
the
2002
murder
.
Both
at
the
time
of
the
murder
and
at
the
time
of
the
final
sentencing
the
same
punishment
(
thirty
years
’
imprisonment
)
applied
.
In
2008
the
rule
on
combined
sentencing
was
changed
and
it
became
more
“
lenient
”
than
the
rule
in
force
when
he
had
committed
the
murder
,
as
far
as
combined
sentences
were
concerned
,
but
it
could
not
affect
that
single
sentence
.
There
was
a
prior
conviction
for
an
act
committed
before
the
change
in
the
law
,
but
that
sentence
had
already
been
made
final
at
the
time
of
the
change
in
the
law
(
2008
)
.
The
applicant
’s
third
conviction
occurred
in
2009
,
shortly
after
the
conviction
for
murder
;
therefore
,
the
twenty
-
year
maximum
was
applicable
to
that
conviction
–
but
not
to
the
two
others
.
As
the
first
sentence
had
been
served
by
the
time
the
applicant
applied
for
a
combined
sentence
,
the
issue
was
the
combination
of
the
murder
sentence
with
the
new
one
.
(
Applying
absorption
theory
one
could
also
argue
that
the
five
-
month
sentence
which
was
handed
down
in
2009
for
paying
with
a
bad
cheque
had
already
been
served
by
2011
.
)
Labels: O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O